1. Join the reviewer
Science Footprint Press (SFP) welcomes scientific researchers to recommend themselves as journal reviewers. You can register through the "expert review" system on this website, and the editorial department will approve it after passing the review.
In addition, SFP will also register appropriate researchers directly as reviewers according to the recommendation of manuscript. authors.

2. Receive or reject the review
The information sent by the SFP manuscript. editing system to the reviewer has basic information about the manuscript, who is asked to quickly decide to accept or reject the invitation for reviewing the manuscript, based on the basic information of the manuscript.
If the invitation is declined, please suggest other reviewers in the review system.

3. Avoid away from conflicts of interest
The reviewer should have no conflict of interest with the authors of the reviewed manuscript.
If the reviewer has a conflict of interest with the authors, please explain to the SFP and to reject the review.

4. Confidentiality requirements for manuscripts
The reviewer shall keep the contents (including the abstract) of the manuscript. confidential.
SFP journals adopt single-blind or double-blind peer review, and reviewers cannot disclose their identity information to the authors in any form.
Information on the review manuscript. obtained by the reviewers is not allowed to be disseminated in any form. without permission from the authors and the SFP.

5. Review time
SFP journals publish papers in open access form, and pay great attention to the timeliness of papers. Therefore, we asked the reviewers to provide timely review reports.
If you accept the invitation to review, you generally want to complete the review within 15 days. If you need to extend the review period, please contact the editorial department.

6. Review decision
Papers submitted to SFP journals are generally reviewed by 3-5 experts.
The editor-in-chief will decide the processing results of the manuscript. after comprehensively weighing up the opinions of all the reviewers.

7. Ethical examination of the manuscript
The manuscript. must be original, and the SFP does not accept published papers in other journals except for papers published in Chinese journals of SFP.
For manuscripts in biology and medicine, paper research should be conducted according to accepted ethical research standards.
If the reviewer finds the academic misconduct (including ethical issues) of the manuscript, he should submit it to the editorial department of the journal in time.

8. Standard for review
The SFP journal review system designed 12 review options, including title abstract, theoretical innovation, and method innovation, to help reviewers better quantitatively assess manuscript. quality.
Reviewers need to choose the options best close to the actual situation of the manuscript. according to the manuscript. quality evaluation level set by the system to help the journal editors make a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript. quality.

9. Review report
The review report is a comprehensive judgment of the overall quality and details of the manuscript. Generally, comments can be made from the importance of topic selection and innovation of manuscript. selection, applicability of research methods, rationality of experimental design, reliability and repeatability of research results, chart quality, and language expression .
The reviewer can also directly annotate and revise the manuscript, and upload the manuscript. as an attachment in the review system.
For more detailed requirements on the manuscript. review report writing, please refer to the following relevant documents:
[1] Hites, R.A., 2014. How to give a scientific talk, present a poster, and write a research paper or proposal. Environmental Science & Technology 48(17), 9960-9964.
[2] Vintzileos, A.M., Ananth, C.V., 2010. How to write and publish an original research article.  American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202(4), 344.e1-6.
[3] Storberg-Walker, J., 2012. Instructor’s corner: Tips for publishing and reviewing qualitative studies in applied disciplines. Human Resource Development Review 11(2), 254-61.
[4] Dekanski, A., 2014. How to present and publish research results. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society 79(12), 1561-570.

10. Overall evaluation of the manuscript
The final overall evaluation of the manuscript. has four levels: "publication", "revised publication", "revised revision" and "rejection", which are important judgments of the reviewers on the overall quality of the manuscript.
"Published" generally means that the manuscript. is free of problems and can be accepted in its current state without revision.
"Revised for publication" generally means that the manuscript. has some minor issues, but it can be accepted after revisions based on the reviewers' comments.
 "Decide after revision" generally means that the manuscript. has major problems and needs major revisions. Whether the manuscript. can be accepted or not depends on the re-review comments after the revision.
 "Rejected" means that the manuscript. has major flaws, and even if relevant revisions are made, it is difficult to meet the publication requirements.