Peer review guidelines

  • Share:

All submissions to CHINA WELDING aresubject to rigorous review. The standard peer review procedure is

  All new submissions arereviewed by editors to ensure adherence to the requirements of CHINA WELDING,including English performance, scientific value, and ethical issues.

  Then the submission will beassigned one editor who will invite some external reviewers to review thesubmission further.

  Once the editors receiveenough review reports, they will make the first decision on the manuscript,Accept, Revision or Reject.

  The author of submissionwill receive the first decision and be asked to make the revision or submit themanuscript elsewhere.

  Upon resubmission, theEditor of CHINA WELIDNG will make the final decision on the manuscript, Accept,Further revision or Reject.


For reviewers:

The review process of Editorial board of CHINA WELDING is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Reviewers must not take any confidential information they havegained in the review process and use it before the paper is published.

Editorial board of CHINA WELDING believes that an efficient editorial process that results in timely publication providesa valuable service both to authors and to the scientific community at large.Editorial board of CHINA WELDING hopes the reviewers can provide the comments within 3 weeks.


Depending upon our journal, reviewer will be asked to evaluate the article on a number of criteria. Normally you would be expected to evaluate the article according to the following:

Is the article sufficiently novel andinteresting to warrant high quality? Does it add to the canon of knowledge?Does the article adhere to our journal's standards? Is the research question animportant one? The reviewer should also consider all key elements present asfollow:

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, andclearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors'findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe theexperiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If themethods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate?Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise indescribing measurements?

Results: This is where the author(s) shouldexplain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should beclearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you arenot comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit yourreport. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate toexpectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved thebody of scientific knowledge forward?

Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor,however.

Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they animportant part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axisare logical.

If the article builds upon previousresearch does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of anotherwork, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail aspossible.

Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.