1. Instructions for Authors

1.1 All the manuscripts must be original works, and the manuscript itself and its key content haven’t been published before. The opinions cited should clearly indicate the reference information. Academic misconduct behaviors such as plagiarism, fraud, falsification, duplicate publication, and text recycling is strictly prohibited.

1.2 the signed authors must provide substantial contributions to the research of the papers and anyone who meets the authorship qualifications should not be omitted. The corresponding author should ensure that the publication is authorized by the co-author, and there is no signature dispute. Changing the order of authors before publication must obtain the consent of the co-authors to ensure the accuracy of authorship.

1.3 The funding information should be should be included in the manuscript. Other sources and people that offer support but are not eligible to be attributed should be clearly stated in the acknowledgements.

2. Instructions for reviewers

2.1 The evaluation of the paper should be disinterested, clear opinion on whether the paper meets the standards for publication academically should be offered and perfunctory or ambiguous comments should be avoided.

2.2 Respect the existence of different academic views, and do not make offensive, disparaging or biased comments. If serious academic misconduct behavior is found in the paper, it should be truthfully reported to the editorial office.

2.3 If relevant research interests is not familiar to you, you should truthfully inform the editorial office. Papers with conflicts of interest or mutual benefits that hinder objective evaluation can be avoided.

2.4 If invited to review, you should finish on time, and the editorial office should be informed in time in terms of delays caused by objective factors.

3. Instructions for editors

3.1 Ensure fairness in the review process. Efforts should be made to ensure that the manuscripts received timely review and publication, especially for the papers reporting important findings.

3.2 Ensure that journals are published on schedule. The content of the papers should be novel and reliable, and priority is given to publishing cutting-edge and hot research results. Eliminate the publication of false, plagiarism, duplicate publication and other academic misconduct papers.

3.3 Establish and maintain a database of reviewers that are suitable and competent for reviewing, supervise the performance of reviewers objectively, and record their review quality as well as efficiency.

3.4 Give feedback to authors on expert reviewers, support academic discussions and coordinate communication between authors and reviewers. There is an obligation to keep reviewer information confidential under the “back-to-back” review principle. Ensure that offensive or defamatory comments are not adopted.

3.5 Make the decision on rejecting or acceptance of papers based on their importance, originality, clarity and relevance to the journal. Allow authors to make appeals.

4. Instructions for the Publisher

4.1 The publisher should report original research results and reviews.

4.2 For the accepted manuscript, if there are any forms of academic misconducts, the publishers have the right to reject, and notify the institute and relevant periodicals.

4.3 For the published papers, if there are academic misconducts, this paper will be retracted, and a retraction will be issued.

4.4 Publish detailed writing guidelines on the website: https://www.ss-journal.com/en/info/6594/.

4.5 Commitment to publish papers, and the order of their appearance in the same issue, only related to the topic selection and the time of paper acceptance.

4.6 A publisher should always be willing to issue corrections, explanations, withdrawals, and apology statements when necessary.

 

All the interpretation rights of the above clauses are reserved by SS's editorial office.