Peer Review

1. Editor Review Policy

1.Review Policy

This journal operates a double-blind peer review system. After a successful submission, the editorial office will conduct a preliminary review of the manuscript. Manuscripts that lack originality, contain serious scientific or technical flaws, lack valuable information, or fall outside the journal’s scope will be rejected. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review will undergo peer review. The manuscript will be sent to two or more reviewers. The reviewers’ recommendations (accept/reject/revise) will be conveyed to the corresponding author. The author must respond to the reviewers’ comments point by point and submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a response to the comments. This process will be repeated until the reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript, at which point the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision on whether to accept the manuscript.

2. Editorial Policy

Authors are responsible for the authenticity and content of their submissions. This journal reserves the right to make textual modifications and deletions to manuscripts; however, any alterations that affect the original meaning will be submitted to the author for consideration. If you do not agree to such edits, please state this in advance.

3. Submission by Editorial Board Members and Editors

Editorial board members and editors must comply with all review and editorial procedures of the journal when submitting their own manuscripts. Editorial board members and editors shall not participate in the review, editing, or acceptance decision-making process for manuscripts authored by themselves, their family members, or their colleagues. Peer review must be conducted independently of the relevant authors, editors, and their research groups.

4. Corrections and Retractions

After publication, if an unintentional scientific error is identified that does not significantly affect the results and conclusions of the article, the editorial office will publish a corrigendum in the journal as soon as possible, detailing the changes made to the original text. If a published article contains serious scientific errors, or is suspected of academic misconduct such as plagiarism or data fabrication, the editorial office may issue a statement alerting readers to concerns regarding the article, conduct an investigation and announce the results, or even retract the article and publish a retraction statement.

5. Appeals and Feedback

Authors who dissent from the editorial review decision may submit an appeal. The author is required to write an “Appeal Letter” noting the manuscript ID. This letter must state detailed reasons for the appeal, including a comprehensive and reasonable explanation for disagreeing with the review comments, and must be validated with an official stamp from the author’s institution. The editorial office will determine whether to accept the appeal based on the specific circumstances. After publication, the journal welcomes discussions initiated by both authors and readers. Upon receipt, the editorial office will handle the matter as soon as possible and provide feedback as appropriate. The journal encourages readers and authors to supervise one another and actively provide relevant information to the journal to jointly foster a positive academic atmosphere. Appeals and feedback may be sent to the journal’s email: journal-1@hebeu.edu.cn.

2. Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Hebei University of Engineering (Natural Science Edition)* will undergo peer review.

1. All manuscripts must be submitted to the editorial office through the online submission system:

http://hebeu.allmaga.net/natural/home

2. After reviewing the manuscript, the initial editor will select one of the following two processes, or reject manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s standards.

1)Normal Process: Assign it to an academic editor, who then invites 2 to 3 peer reviewers and sends the recommendations back to the initial editor.

2)Fast Track: With the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, 2-3 peer reviewers are invited to review the manuscript.

3.The initial editor makes a decision based on the corresponding editor’s recommendations (if it is a normal process) or directly based on the reviewers’ comments (if it is a fast track), and notifies the author.

4. The author revises the manuscript based on the editor’s recommendations and resubmits the revised version for further evaluation, and the process is repeated until acceptance or rejection (repeating steps 2 and 3 above).

5. Then, the initial editor will recommend acceptance or rejection of the manuscript based on the corresponding editor’s recommendations (if it is a normal process) or the reviewers’ comments (if it is a fast track). The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision.

 

 

Published: October 1, 2025