Reviewers for journals published by Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG) must uphold accepted scientific and ethical standards throughout the peer-review process. This policy describes how reviewers are registered, selected, evaluated, and managed; how manuscripts and review reports are assessed; how artificial intelligence (AI) may support editorial quality control; and how editorial decisions, appeals, and complaints are handled. It is intended to ensure that peer review remains independent, evidence-based, transparent, and traceable while protecting confidentiality, fairness, and research integrity.

Peer review provides journals with independent expert analysis of a manuscript's scientific merit, methods, interpretation, reporting, and ethical compliance. Reviewers help authors identify correctable weaknesses and help editors reach evidence-based decisions. Review reports are advisory inputs; they do not determine the editorial outcome. Editorial independence must be maintained throughout reviewer selection, peer review, revision, and decision-making.

3.1 Purpose and Scope

These standards apply to new applicants, reviewers whom editors invite and add to the system, and existing reviewers whose profiles, professional qualifications, or performance require reassessment. They establish consistent requirements for reviewer registration, qualification review, manuscript matching, performance evaluation, status management, reconsideration and appeal, recordkeeping, privacy protection, and quality assurance.

Registration creates a candidate reviewer record only. It does not constitute a formal appointment or guarantee review invitations or continued eligibility. General conflict-of-interest screening during registration does not replace disclosure and recusal for each manuscript.

3.2 Reviewer Registration Criteria

Applicants should generally meet all of the following requirements:

(1) Possess academic, clinical, statistical, methodological, technical, or professional practice expertise relevant to the journal's scope and be able to provide appropriate supporting evidence.

(2) Hold a doctoral or professional degree, or have documented equivalent professional competence. When their expertise is appropriate and journal policy permits, senior doctoral candidates and other early-career researchers may be conditionally registered as candidate reviewers.

(3) Remain active in a relevant academic or professional field. Applicants should normally have produced at least one substantive peer-reviewed research output during the preceding five years as a first author, corresponding author, co-first author, co-corresponding author, or another author who made a substantive contribution. For statisticians, methodologists, clinicians, data or software experts, policy experts, and other qualified professionals, an editor may grant an exception based on verified professional experience, provided that the reason is documented.

(4) Have sufficient command of the review language to provide clear, specific, and constructive comments. Language proficiency or writing style alone must not be used as a substitute for scientific competence.

(5) Be able and willing to complete an accepted review assignment within the agreed period, normally 14 calendar days. Any request for an extension should be submitted promptly.

(6) Agree to comply with the journal's policies on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, data protection, and the use of artificial intelligence.

3.3 Registration Review and Decision

A registration application should normally proceed through the following four documented stages. If an uncorrectable deficiency is identified at an earlier stage, the remaining stages may be discontinued, but the reason must be recorded:

Stage 1 is administrative screening. The journal confirms that the application is complete, all necessary consents have been obtained, no duplicate account exists, contact information is valid, and the information provided is internally consistent.

Stage 2 is identity and record verification. The journal uses reliable institutional or bibliographic sources to verify the applicant's identity, appointment, qualifications, representative outputs, authorship, and researcher identifiers. Any material inconsistency must be referred to the applicant for explanation. The application must not proceed to a final registration decision until the inconsistency has been satisfactorily resolved.

Stage 3 is editorial assessment and recommendation. An authorized editor evaluates the applicant's subject-area and methodological competence, the relevance of the applicant's outputs, integrity information, general conflicts of interest, communication skills, and the journal's reviewer needs. The editor then recommends acceptance, a request for additional information, or rejection and records the basis for that recommendation.

Stage 4 is the final registration decision. Based on the records from the preceding three stages, the responsible editor or another editor authorized by the journal decides whether to accept the registration, request additional information, or reject the application. Acceptance means only that the applicant is added to the candidate reviewer database; it does not constitute a formal appointment or guarantee a review invitation. The issuance of an Academic Contribution Identifier (ACID) and publication of a personal academic profile must be handled separately from the registration decision. Personal information may be made public only after the applicant has been fully informed and has provided explicit consent. A decision not to make personal information public must not affect registration eligibility or the assignment of review tasks.

3.4 Reviewer Performance Evaluation and Status Management

The journal must evaluate reviewer performance on an ongoing basis. The outcome of each assignment must be recorded when the assignment is completed, closed as overdue, or closed for another reason. The journal may also conduct periodic aggregate evaluations based on the number of assignments, identified risk signals, or management needs. Each evaluation must include at least the following:

(1) Whether the review was completed within the agreed period and whether the reviewer communicated promptly when unable to meet the deadline.

(2) Whether the comments were relevant to the manuscript, specific, sufficiently detailed, clear, and constructive.

(3) Whether the scientific, methodological, and statistical assessments were accurate and identified key issues affecting the reliability of the study.

(4) Whether the comments were objective, professional, and internally consistent and avoided personal criticism, discriminatory language, or requests unrelated to academic assessment.

(5) Whether the reviewer complied with policies on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, data protection, and the use of artificial intelligence.

(6) Whether there were risks involving a false identity, unauthorized delegation of the review, misappropriation of manuscript content, citation manipulation, or other research integrity concerns.

Performance evaluations must be based on verified substantive evidence and must consider the seriousness and frequency of any issue, its effect on editorial decision-making, and any reasonable explanation provided by the reviewer. An adverse decision must not be made automatically because of a single minor delay, one automated score, or a legitimate academic disagreement between an editor and a reviewer. Artificial intelligence, bibliometric tools, and other automated systems may provide supporting information only; qualified personnel must verify all material alerts.

Based on the evaluation, the journal may maintain the reviewer's eligibility, require improvement, apply enhanced monitoring, suspend review invitations, or revoke eligibility. If a serious confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, or research-integrity risk is identified, the journal may impose a temporary suspension while the matter is investigated. Unless immediate action is necessary to prevent a real and urgent risk, the reviewer must be informed of the principal grounds and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final adverse decision is made. Every status change must be made by an authorized editor, supported by recorded reasons, and communicated to the reviewer.

3.5 Reconsideration and Appeal

An applicant or reviewer may request reconsideration within 30 calendar days after receiving notice of a registration rejection, adverse performance evaluation, suspension of review invitations, or revocation of reviewer eligibility. The request must identify the disputed facts, procedure, or judgment and provide relevant evidence. Reconsideration should, in principle, be conducted by a Handling Editor who did not participate in the original decision. If staffing constraints make this impracticable, the reason must be recorded and other safeguards used to protect the independence of the review. A person who remains dissatisfied may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief or a publisher-designated appeal body within 30 calendar days after receiving the reconsideration outcome. Where practicable, the person reviewing the appeal must not have participated in the original decision or reconsideration. The outcome and reasons for each reconsideration and appeal must be documented and communicated within a reasonable period, subject to confidentiality and data-protection requirements. The appeal decision is the journal's or publisher's final internal decision but does not affect any rights available under applicable law.

3.6 Recordkeeping, Privacy Protection, and Quality Assurance

(1) Maintain a complete and traceable audit record of registration verification, task-specific conflict-of-interest disclosures, review-report evaluations, status changes, complaints, responses, reconsiderations, appeals, and final decisions.

(2) Restrict access to nonpublic reviewer information to persons who have a genuine need for it for editorial, research-integrity, legal, or system-administration purposes. Retention periods must comply with applicable law and institutional data-retention policies. Information must be deleted or anonymized when the purpose for retaining it no longer applies or the retention period expires, as required.

(3) Make personal information public only after the individual has been clearly informed and has consented. Provide practical means for individuals to view and correct public information, withdraw consent, or request deletion. Withdrawal of consent to public disclosure should not affect reviewer eligibility, although information required by law or necessary to preserve a complete audit record may continue to be retained.

(4) To the extent permitted by law and practicable, periodically assess whether registration, assignment, performance-evaluation, and status decisions create avoidable bias related to career stage, geographic location, language background, or other relevant characteristics, and take appropriate corrective action when a problem is identified.

(5) Use artificial intelligence, bibliometric tools, and other automated systems only to support decision-making. Qualified personnel must verify all material alerts. An authorized editor must make the final decision, which must be traceable to that editor and the stated grounds.

3.7 Registration and Public Profile Search

To apply to serve as a peer reviewer, please visit: https://referencecitationanalysis.com/editorialboard/regist1.

ACID personal academic profiles published with the individual's explicit consent can be found through Find a Contributing Scholar: https://referencecitationanalysis.com/searchscholar.

Reviewers should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines and the relevant flowchart when reviewing a manuscript.

4.1 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose to the journal any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest involving the manuscript, its authors, their institutions, funders, products, or other relevant parties. Employment at a different institution does not by itself establish independence. The editor will determine whether a disclosed conflict can be appropriately managed. A reviewer must decline the invitation or withdraw from the review whenever a conflict could compromise, or could reasonably be perceived to compromise, the reviewer's objectivity or impartiality. If a conflict is identified after the report has been submitted, the reviewer must notify the journal immediately. The journal will determine whether the report may be relied upon, document the action taken, and, when appropriate, reassess the reviewer's eligibility or remove the reviewer from its database.

4.2 Confidentiality

Reviewers must keep confidential the manuscript, supplementary materials, author responses, editorial correspondence, review reports, reviewer identities, and any other nonpublic information obtained through peer review. They must not share, discuss, disclose, copy, retain, or use these materials except as necessary to complete the review and as authorized by the journal. A reviewer must not involve a colleague, trainee, student, or other person without the editor's prior written permission. Any approved contributor must be identified to the journal and comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements. After completing or declining the review, reviewers must securely delete or destroy the review materials unless the journal authorizes or requires their retention. These confidentiality obligations continue after the editorial decision and publication for any information that the journal has not made public.

4.3 Appropriation of Manuscript Content

Reviewers must not use information, data, ideas, methods, images, text, or other content obtained through peer review for personal, professional, competitive, or scholarly advantage, including use in their own work, before the material becomes publicly available, unless they have obtained written permission from both the authors and the editors. This obligation continues after the review and publication for any confidential or unpublished material.

4.4 Seeking Improper Benefits

Reviewers must not contact authors directly or use confidential information or their reviewer role to obtain improper personal or professional benefits.

4.5 Use of AI

This section governs the use of AI by external peer reviewers. AI tools may assist only as permitted below and must not replace human judgment or responsibility in peer review.

4.5.1 Confidentiality (Strict Prohibition). Reviewers must not enter or upload any part of a manuscript, supplementary material, author response, editorial correspondence, or other confidential review material into an AI system that the journal has not expressly authorized in advance. Doing so constitutes a breach of peer-review confidentiality.

4.5.2 Permitted Use. Reviewers may use a journal-authorized AI tool solely to make limited improvements to the language or grammar of a review report when confidentiality can be assured, no protected manuscript content is disclosed, and the use is reported to the journal in accordance with journal policy or the editor's prior authorization.

4.5.3 Prohibited Use. Reviewers must not use AI to conduct the scientific evaluation, interpret results, assess originality or validity, or generate substantive review findings, conclusions, or recommendations.

4.5.4 Responsibility. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, completeness, originality, fairness, and reasoning of their reports. They must independently verify any AI-assisted language output and remain responsible for protecting manuscript confidentiality and the ethical integrity of the peer-review process.

4.6 Recommended Citations

Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own work, the work of their colleagues, or journals with which they are associated. Any recommended citation must be relevant, necessary, and scientifically justified. The reviewer should explain why it is needed so that the authors and editor can evaluate the recommendation independently.

5.1 Eligibility

A registered reviewer is eligible to receive a peer-review fee only when all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The reviewer was registered when the report was submitted.

(2) The manuscript was unsolicited at the time of initial submission.

(3) The reviewer personally completed a formal peer-review assignment and submitted an independent, substantive report that complied with the journal's reviewer guidelines and applicable ethical requirements.

(4) The reviewed article was ultimately published online by the journal.

Eligibility does not depend on whether the reviewer recommended acceptance, revision, or rejection.

5.2 Fee Calculation

After the article has been published online, the authors rate each eligible peer-review report on a scale of one to five stars. The peer-review fee is USD 10 per star, up to five stars (USD 50 per report). Authors should base the rating on the report's specificity, reasoning, constructiveness, and usefulness, not on whether they agreed with the reviewer's recommendation or the editorial decision.

5.3 Ineligible Reviews

No fee is payable for:

(1) A report on an invited manuscript, including an invited editorial, review article, or correspondence.

(2) A report on a manuscript that is not ultimately published online.

(3) An incomplete, duplicate, withdrawn, plagiarized, fabricated, improperly delegated, or otherwise invalid report.

(4) A report that materially fails to comply with the journal's reviewer guidelines or ethical requirements.

(5) Informal comments, consultations, or other contributions not submitted as part of a formal peer-review assignment.

5.4 Editorial Independence and Review Integrity

The peer-review fee is an administrative payment that recognizes the reviewer's professional contribution. Fee eligibility and the amount paid must not influence the selection or evaluation of reviewers, the content or outcome of peer review, or any editorial decision concerning the manuscript.

Reviewers must comply with all requirements concerning confidentiality, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, data protection, and the use of artificial intelligence. The journal may withhold or cancel payment if a reviewer engages in misconduct or seriously violates journal policy. Any payment-related determination must be documented and handled separately from the manuscript's academic decision.

6.1 Initial Checks

Upon submission, a Scientific Editor conducts at least the following checks:

(1) Whether the manuscript's topic falls within the journal's scope.

(2) Whether the authors' institutional affiliations and departments are consistent with the stated research and author roles.

(3) Whether research involving humans, identifiable human data or tissues, animals, or organ transplantation includes the applicable ethics approval, exemption, or formal documentation that ethical review is not required or is inapplicable.

(4) Whether informed consent or an approved consent waiver has been documented, when applicable.

(5) Whether an applicable clinical trial was registered in a recognized public registry and the registration information is reported.

(6) Whether disclosures concerning conflicts of interest, funding, data availability, and AI use are complete.

(7) Whether the manuscript, figures, tables, references, supplementary materials, required language documents, and cover letter are complete and mutually consistent.

(8) Whether there is evidence of academic or publication misconduct, including paper-mill involvement; coordinated or mass submissions with common integrity red flags; undisclosed ghost authorship or writing assistance; plagiarism; peer-review manipulation; or image, data, or citation irregularities.

6.2 Initial Academic Review

If a manuscript passes the Initial Checks, it proceeds to an initial academic review under the overall supervision of the Editor-in-Chief. When appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may assign the assessment to an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. The assigned editor assesses the manuscript's academic quality and provides preliminary comments. The Editor-in-Chief then determines or confirms whether the manuscript qualifies for external peer review. Manuscripts that qualify proceed to external peer review; those that do not are rejected.

6.3 Selecting Peer Reviewers

All BPG journals use single-anonymized peer review, also known as single-blind peer review. Authors' identities are disclosed to reviewers; reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors or the public unless the reviewer gives explicit consent or an applicable journal policy expressly provides otherwise. Research articles and other manuscript types that normally require external peer review are evaluated independently by external experts. Corrections, retraction notices, and other post-publication notices may instead undergo independent editorial review and, when necessary, external expert review proportionate to the issue.

After a manuscript passes the Initial Academic Review, the Handling Editor usually invites 10 prospective independent external experts with relevant subject-matter expertise and no conflicts of interest. Invitees have 36 hours to accept or decline. Reviewers who accept should normally complete the review within 14 calendar days in accordance with the Guidelines for Manuscript Review; when necessary, they may select an extended deadline of 17 or 21 calendar days.

Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript within their area of expertise, including its novelty, scientific significance, research design, methodology, statistical analysis, reliability and internal consistency of the reported results, appropriateness of the interpretation, and whether the evidence supports the conclusions. Reviewers provide reasoned, specific, and actionable comments; identify limitations, ethical concerns, reporting deficiencies, or the need for additional analyses or experiments, where applicable; disclose conflicts of interest; and recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute editorial decisions.

When authors recommend or request the exclusion of particular reviewers, their suggestions are advisory only. The Handling Editor independently selects reviewers and must verify the identity, expertise, publication record, and conflicts of interest of any author-recommended reviewer before an invitation is issued. The journal is not required to use a recommended reviewer or honor an exclusion request unless a valid conflict or other material risk is established.

Reviewers must receive the manuscript, relevant supplementary materials, reporting checklists, author disclosures, and any other documents necessary for an informed evaluation. Supplementary materials that support the manuscript's methods, analyses, results, or conclusions are part of the peer-review record and must be assessed as appropriate.

6.4 Re-review of Revised Manuscripts

When expert confirmation is needed, the Handling Editor may return a revised manuscript to the original reviewers or invite additional qualified reviewers. Reviewers assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive comments, whether the revision introduces new concerns, and whether the evidence supports the revised conclusions. If further revision is recommended, the Handling Editor, supported where appropriate by a Scientific Editor, determines which requests are scientifically justified and communicates the verified issues to the authors. Re-review may be omitted when the remaining issues are exclusively editorial or when the existing expert record is sufficient for an informed academic decision. Re-review recommendations and editorial verification are supporting evidence; neither automatically determines the decision.

6.5 Manuscripts Submitted by Editors

A manuscript authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, or an Editorial Board Member must be assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest and was not involved in preparing the manuscript. The author-editor must have no access to reviewer identities, confidential review materials, or editorial deliberations beyond the information provided to other authors and must not participate in reviewer selection or any decision. The published article should disclose the independent handling arrangement when applicable.

6.6 Transparency and Publication of Peer-Review Records

For published articles, BPG publishes peer-review reports and relevant editorial documents with the article in accordance with the journal's disclosed policy and subject to applicable confidentiality, privacy, legal, research-integrity, and consent requirements. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless the reviewer has expressly consented to disclosure. Editors may redact personal information, confidential material, legally protected information, or abusive content, but any editing or redaction must not alter the scientific meaning of the report. Material changes must be documented, and the reviewer should be informed when practicable.

For a complete overview of the manuscript decision-making process, please see BPG's Editorial Process: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/316.

Peer review is the evaluation of an academic manuscript by independent experts in the relevant field before an editorial decision is made. Editors must not participate in decisions about manuscripts they have written, manuscripts written by their family members or colleagues, or manuscripts concerning products or services in which they have an interest. Reviewers should apply the following criteria as appropriate to the manuscript type, study design, and claims made.

7.1 Title

Does the title identify the most important and compelling aspect of the work? Is it clear without reference to the main text?

7.2 Abstract

Does the abstract clearly state the importance of the topic, the research objective, the distinctive features of the methods, and the novelty, significance, and impact of the findings?

7.3 Keywords

Do the keywords accurately represent the manuscript's defining elements and central content?

7.4 Introduction

Does the Introduction summarize established knowledge and relevant theory, identify unresolved issues, explain why they matter, and state the purpose of the study?

7.5 Materials and Methods or Experimental Procedures

If the study introduces a new method, technique, or algorithm, is its novelty clearly explained? Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to allow replication? Is any applicable ethics approval reported? Are the statistical methods, effect estimates, measures of uncertainty, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses clearly described, as applicable?

7.6 Results

Are the results novel and clearly presented? Do they correspond directly to the methods described? If the authors report a new or improved method, is the claimed improvement supported by the results? Are the figures and illustrations clear and sufficiently self-explanatory? Are the data displayed accurately and the results easy to interpret? Are the statistical analyses and interpretation appropriate and consistent throughout the manuscript? Are the figures and tables numbered in their order of appearance?

7.7 Discussion

Does the Discussion explain the scientific question addressed by the study and compare the findings appropriately with previous research? Does it discuss the discoveries, methods, techniques, and implications of the findings? Does it acknowledge and examine the study's limitations?

7.8 Conclusion

Is the manuscript, from the Title through the Conclusion, logical and coherent? Is the study hypothesis clear, well founded, and testable? Do the results support the conclusion? Is the most important finding clearly stated? Are the implications of the study and appropriate directions for future research presented?

7.9 Acknowledgments

The Acknowledgments should recognize institutions or individuals who contributed to or supported the study but do not meet the authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Commercial entities must not be acknowledged in a way that implies endorsement or promotion. Any professional, technical, statistical, language-editing, or commercial support must be disclosed transparently in accordance with the journal's authorship, funding, and conflict-of-interest policies.

7.10 References

Are the references relevant to the manuscript's subject? Does the manuscript cite recent and important work where appropriate? Are any important references missing? Does the manuscript cite irrelevant articles by its authors? Are the references cited sequentially in the text?

7.11 Abbreviations

Are abbreviations used correctly? Unless included among the exceptions below, each abbreviation should be defined at first use in each standalone part of the manuscript (e.g., the Abstract, Core Tip, and main text). Common abbreviations such as DNA, RNA, HIV, LD50, PCR, HBV, ECG, WBC, RBC, CT, ESR, CSF, IgG, ELISA, PBS, ATP, EDTA, and mAb need not be defined.

7.12 Language

Does the manuscript contain frequent errors in spelling, grammar, tense, number agreement, punctuation, or terminology?

7.13 Manuscript Type

Does the manuscript's content match its declared type? Manuscript types include Editorial, Frontier, Guidelines, Field of Vision, Opinion Review, Expert Consensus, Evidence Review, Review, Minireview, Case Control Study, Retrospective Cohort Study, Retrospective Study, Clinical Trials Study, Observational Study, Prospective Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Randomized Clinical Trial, Basic Study, Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, Scientometrics, Case Report, Correspondence, Correction, and Retraction Note. For more information about manuscript types, see https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/204.

7.14 Scientific Research Ethics

Have all ethical requirements applicable to the manuscript type, study design, participants, animals, specimens, and data sources been identified and met?

Each manuscript must be assessed to determine which ethical requirements apply. For research involving humans, identifiable human data or tissues, animals, or organ transplantation, authors must submit, as applicable, ethics committee approval or exemption documentation, informed-consent or approved consent-waiver documentation, or a formal determination that ethical review is not required or is inapplicable. Any approval or reference number must be reported.

For human organ transplantation studies, authors must also identify the institution or clinical department from which the organs or tissues were obtained; confirm that they were obtained legally and voluntarily, with prior informed consent; and affirm that the study did not involve organ trafficking, transplant commercialization, coercion, or transplant tourism.

Animal research must be approved by the appropriate institutional ethics committee or institutional animal care and use committee, and the approval or reference number must be reported. Authors must comply with applicable animal-welfare requirements and report the study in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines.

For a complete overview of ethical oversight requirements for human research, animal research, and organ transplantation, see BPG's Publication Ethics: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/288.

7.15 Reporting Standards, Reproducibility, and Open Science

Reviewers should assess compliance with the reporting guideline appropriate to the manuscript type and study design, such as CONSORT and SPIRIT for clinical trials and protocols, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA and PRISMA-P for systematic reviews and protocols, CARE for case reports, STARD for diagnostic-accuracy studies, TRIPOD for prediction-model studies, ARRIVE for animal research, or an equivalent recognized guideline. Where applicable, reviewers should compare the manuscript with its protocol, trial or review registration, and statistical analysis plan; evaluate whether deviations are explained; and assess whether data, code, materials, and analytic procedures are sufficiently available or described to support verification and reproducibility. Legitimate ethical, legal, privacy, proprietary, or security restrictions on sharing must be stated and justified. A reporting checklist supports, but does not replace, independent scientific and methodological judgment.

Peer reviewers draw on their subject-matter expertise and apply scientific rigor, objectivity, and impartiality when evaluating a manuscript's originality, methodology, completeness, clarity, significance, and ethical compliance. Their reports provide the Editorial Office with reasoned evidence for decision-making and help authors improve their manuscripts, whether or not the work is ultimately accepted.

Before writing a peer-review report, reviewers should consider the following questions: Why was the study conducted? What was done? What are the principal findings? Why were the methods and parameters chosen? What was already known? How does this work differ from previous research?

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript's academic quality, originality, and significance; explain its limitations; and identify specific errors or ambiguities in the text, figures, tables, references, or other content.

Comments should focus on the manuscript's scientific content, be well reasoned and sufficiently detailed, and provide specific guidance that authors can use when revising the manuscript.

If you have questions or concerns about the manuscript you are reviewing, or need help submitting your report, please contact the Help Desk at https://www.f6publishing.com/HelpDesk.

9.1 Qualified Review Report

A report may be used to support an editorial decision only if it:

(1) Comes from a verified reviewer with appropriate expertise and no unmanaged conflict of interest.

(2) Addresses the manuscript's principal scientific and ethical issues rather than only language or formatting.

(3) Provides specific, reasoned, evidence-based comments that are proportionate to the study and claims.

(4) Is internally consistent, respectful, and compliant with confidentiality, citation, and AI requirements.

(5) Contains enough substantive analysis for an editor to understand the basis of the recommendation.

Timeliness is assessed separately as a reviewer performance indicator. A delayed report may still be used if it remains scientifically relevant and can be considered before the editorial decision; delay alone does not invalidate its substantive analysis.

9.2 Reports That Must Not Be Relied Upon

A report must be excluded from consideration, replaced, or referred for further assessment if it is superficial, generic, copied, abusive, scientifically unsupported, materially inaccurate, beyond the reviewer's expertise, affected by an undisclosed conflict, dominated by coercive citation requests, produced through prohibited AI use, associated with identity or peer-review manipulation, or in breach of confidentiality. The journal must document why it did not rely on the report and obtain additional independent review when necessary.

9.3 AI-Assisted Academic Quality Assessment

An AI-assisted assessment used by BPG is a separate editorial quality-control input, not a peer-review report and not an independent exercise of scientific judgment. AI-generated output is treated as unverified screening information until each material issue has been independently evaluated against the manuscript by qualified editorial personnel. The assessment may identify potential issues involving novelty, design, methods, statistics, data reliability, ethics, reporting, and interpretation, but it must not make or automatically determine an editorial decision.

Only a BPG-authorized system operating under documented confidentiality, privacy, security, and data-protection controls may process manuscript or review material. Confidential content must not be entered into a public or unauthorized AI system or used to train a public or general-purpose model. Access must be limited to authorized personnel; retention and deletion periods must be defined; any service provider must be contractually prohibited from unauthorized access, reuse, disclosure, or model training; and the system must be tested, validated for its intended use, monitored for bias and material error, and reassessed after significant changes. If confidentiality cannot be assured, manuscript content must not be processed by the AI system. BPG must disclose its routine use of AI-assisted editorial quality control through its published Artificial Intelligence Use Policy and information provided to authors.

For manuscript types covered by this procedure, the first AI-assisted assessment is conducted after qualified external review reports have been received and before the first editorial decision. It establishes an academic-quality baseline and flags potential issues. The Handling Editor must independently examine the manuscript and verify every material finding before considering it; unsupported or uncertain findings must be marked as unverified or excluded. After the authors revise the manuscript and any required expert re-review is completed, a second AI-assisted assessment compares the revised manuscript with the earlier findings, indicates whether material issues appear to have been resolved, and identifies any new concerns. A Scientific Editor must independently verify each relevant finding from the second assessment against the revised manuscript before it is considered. AI findings must not substitute for qualified peer review, editorial expertise, or the Editor-in-Chief's final judgment.

For each AI-assisted assessment, the editorial record should identify the system and version used, the date and purpose of use, the responsible editor, the material findings considered, and the result of human verification. Suspected confidentiality, security, bias, or reliability failures must be documented and escalated under BPG's incident-response and policy-review procedures.

9.4 Editorial Decision Standards

For a manuscript subject to external peer review, the Handling Editor normally makes the first editorial decision after at least two qualified reports from independent reviewers have been received. If the reports materially conflict or do not adequately address a key scientific, methodological, statistical, or ethical issue, the Handling Editor should obtain additional expert review or document another appropriate means of resolving the issue before making the decision. The first editorial decision may be to invite revision or reject the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final academic decision.

A manuscript may be accepted only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The manuscript falls within the journal's scope.

(2) The work has clear scholarly value.

(3) The research design, methods, and statistical analyses are reliable.

(4) The reported data are consistent with the conclusions.

(5) Applicable ethical and research-integrity requirements are satisfied.

(6) All material scientific concerns raised by reviewers or verified through editorial assessment have been satisfactorily addressed or explicitly adjudicated by the responsible editor.

(7) The manuscript meets the language, manuscript-type, and reporting standards required for publication.

(8) Applicable requirements for protocol transparency, reproducibility, and data availability are satisfied.

Revision is appropriate when the study has a credible foundation but contains problems that can reasonably be corrected through additional analyses of existing data, clarification, improved reporting, or supporting documentation. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

Rejection is appropriate when the manuscript has an uncorrectable design flaw, unreliable or unverifiable data, conclusions unsupported by the evidence, serious ethical or research-integrity concerns, insufficient scholarly value for the journal, or unresolved material deficiencies after reasonable revision. Editors must base decisions on substantive evidence and independent professional judgment, not solely on reviewer votes, ratings, recommendation categories, fees, or AI results.

9.5 Decision Communication and Reviewer Feedback

Decision letters should state the principal reasons for the decision, distinguish required revisions from optional suggestions, and reconcile contradictory or duplicative reviewer requests where possible. Editors must remove abusive, irrelevant, confidential, or coercive content before sending reports to authors. Reviewers should be informed of the manuscript's final decision and may, where journal policy permits, receive anonymized comments from co-reviewers for educational purposes. Editorial editing of a review report must be limited to what is necessary for clarity, confidentiality, legality, civility, or policy compliance and must not change the reviewer's scientific meaning or recommendation. Any material suppression or alteration must be documented, and the reviewer should be notified when practicable.

10.1 Editorial Decision Appeals

An author may appeal an editorial decision when there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision resulted from a material factual or methodological misunderstanding, a significant error in the review or editorial record, an unmanaged conflict of interest, a substantial departure from the published process, or important information that was unavailable when the decision was made. Mere disagreement with the reviewers or a request for a different outcome is not sufficient.

Unless exceptional circumstances justify a delay, an appeal should be submitted within 14 calendar days of the decision. Only one appeal is normally considered for a manuscript. The corresponding author must submit the appeal request, include the word "Appeal" and the manuscript ID in the email subject line, explain the basis for the appeal in the email body, and state that all authors agree to the appeal. The appeal must include the decision date, specific grounds, supporting evidence, and a concise explanation of how the alleged error or process failure could have materially affected the decision. While an appeal is under review, the manuscript must not be submitted to another journal.

10.2 Independent Handling of Appeals

An appeal must be assigned to an editor or appeal body that did not participate in the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. The Editor-in-Chief may handle the appeal only if the Editor-in-Chief was not involved in the disputed decision. The appeal handler reviews the manuscript, decision letters, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial assessments, and supporting evidence and may obtain additional independent review when needed. If the appeal concerns, or was previously handled by, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Office Director, or another person who would ordinarily consider it, an independent senior editor or publisher-designated appeal body must be appointed.

The journal acknowledges an appeal promptly. The time required to consider an appeal may vary according to the complexity of the manuscript and the issues raised. When a complex ethical, data-related, legal, or external institutional inquiry requires more time, the journal provides a status update. Possible outcomes include upholding the decision, reopening editorial consideration, obtaining further independent review, or correcting a procedural error. An appeal does not guarantee re-review, revision, or acceptance. The appeal decision is final within the journal unless new evidence of research misconduct or a material procedural failure emerges.

10.3 Complaints About Process or Conduct

Complaints about delay, communication, confidentiality, reviewer or editor conduct, discrimination, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, or failure to follow policy are handled separately from appeals concerning scientific merit. A complaint should identify the manuscript, the persons or process involved, relevant dates, supporting evidence, and the remedy requested. It must be assigned to a person who is not the subject of the complaint and has no relevant conflict of interest.

10.4 Submission Channels

Appeals relating to peer review, the First Editorial Decision, revision, editing, or final publication verification may be sent to the Editorial Office Director, Jin-Lei Wang, at j.l.wang@wjgnet.com. If the appeal or complaint concerns that office or requires an independent channel, it may be sent to office@baishideng.com with a request for reassignment to an independent Handling Editor. Confidentiality and non-retaliation apply to good-faith appeals and complaints.

For a complete overview of the appeals and complaints process, see BPG's Appeals and Complaints policy: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/312. 

11.1 Policy Review

BPG periodically reviews this policy to reflect changes in research practices, publication ethics, data protection, artificial intelligence, reporting standards, and journal operations. Material changes are dated and communicated to relevant editors and reviewers. Journal staff should document and escalate recurring process failures or emerging integrity risks for policy review.

11.2 Contact

Questions about a review assignment or submission of a review report may be directed to the Help Desk at https://www.f6publishing.com/HelpDesk. General policy inquiries may be directed to office@baishideng.com.