Information and Policy >  > 

Instructions for Reviewers
Model of Peer Review
Xia & He adopts the single blind peer review meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author. The journal editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors. The peer reviews are not published to public. And the reviews are owned by the authors of the reviews. 
Objectives of Peer Review

The objective of peer review is to provide constructive but rigorous encouragement regarding the scientific content and English language quality of a report. All comments and suggestions of our peer reviewers are given in a respectful tone, and returned to the journal’s editorial office in a timely manner. Usually 15 days (with a short grace period allowed for extenuating circumstances) is allotted for completion of the peer review evaluation after a peer reviewer has accepted the manuscript. Peer reviewers also help to ensure the ethical integrity of each manuscript, by pointing out any suspected or identified cases of plagiarism, either scientific or textual, in whole or in part. Peer reviewers are encouraged to follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guideline ( and flowchart ( when taking peer review works.

All our journals will comply to full extent with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts.

Peer Review Process

When the editorial office receives a new submission, the manuscript is given an identification number. The editorial staff then performs an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its topical relevance, adherence to the formatting guidelines, and absence of plagiarism in both textual and scientific content.

If the manuscript passes this initial assessment, it is forwarded to an academic editor with appropriate expertise in the subject area or study design. The academic editor is responsible for identifying at least 2 external peer reviewers with expertise in the topic or specialty of the paper. Factors, such as publication records, previous experience, and potential conflict of interests, will be taken into consideration when selecting reviewers. After a peer reviewer has accepted the manuscript, 15 days (with a short grace period allowed for extenuating circumstances) is allotted for completion of the peer review evaluation. Upon return of the 2 peer reviews, the academic editor will make a reasoned recommendation for acceptance (full, with minor revisions, or with major revisions) or rejection and provide it to the Editor-in-Chief who makes the editorial decision. The authors then revise the paper, as needed, based on the reviewers’ comments and editorial comments.

After the authors submit their revision, the manuscript undergoes another peer-review, or it will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision, if appropriate. If the paper is accepted, the preparation stage for publication then begins.

Major Points of Content Assessment for Manuscripts

The Title will be evaluated as a concise and informative description of the major points of the study’s key features.

The Abstract will be evaluated for its clarity and appropriateness in describing the study’s objectives, materials (including patient/subject and control groups and features) and methods (including statistical procedures), results (including summary data obtained by the methods and materials described, as well as measurement and statistical values), and conclusions supported by the results presented and within the scope and limitations of the study design.

The Introduction will be evaluated for its presentation of background information that is not only germane to the study objectives but also representative of the current information in the literature. The study objectives and major features of the study design should be clearly stated.

The Materials and Methods will be evaluated for sufficient and thorough presentation of sample populations/specimens and reagents/equipment as well as all processes (laboratory and/or clinical) that will allow for a reader to replicate the study and validate its findings.

The Results will be evaluated for comprehensive and specific presentation of the data, including all measurement values and results of statistical analyses, obtained by the experimental and observational processes described in the Materials and Methods section. The location of any data that is presented in table or figure format, or as supplementary material, must be cited in the text.

The Discussion will be evaluated for interpretation of the study’s results that are within the scope and limitations of the study design. Speculation on a finding’s implications must be supported by clearly described reasoning supported by references to knowledge in the literature.

Referenced materials will be evaluated for their topical relevance and representation of the most current knowledge in the literature.

Tables and Figures will be evaluated for their ability to communicate a set of data in the most effective, logical and simple manner, with minimal confusion (such as redundancy or over-stylization).

All communications and documents shared among the editorial staff, representatives of XIA & HE PUBLISHING INC, and peer reviewers are kept strictly confidential and are never shared with a third party. Peer reviewers agree not to discuss any portion of the manuscripts they are entrusted to review with anyone outside of the staff or representatives of XIA & HE PUBLISHING INC.
The practice of transferring a manuscript that is assigned for peer review to another colleague (including but not limited to graduate students, post docs, and any other trainee or collaborator) is considered unethical and forbidden. A peer reviewer must obtain prior approval from the journal’s editorial office before using a peer review assignment as a training opportunity or consulting a colleague with greater expertise in a particular area related to the topic. The request for such approval must include the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the proposed colleague(s), and an explicit declaration of assurance that the reviewer assigned by the journal will act as the principal reviewer and retain sole responsibility for the quality and integrity of the review content.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy
Any conflict of interest (financial, professional, personal, or otherwise) must be disclosed to the journal’s editorial office as soon as it is recognized or suspected, including, but not limited to, the following: having financial interest with the findings, having competition to publish the same findings, having collaboration or publication with an author in the recent past, working at the same institution with the author, having a dispute with the author, and being a friend/family member/present or previous mentor of the author. 

All peer reviewers are requested to disclose any conflicts of interests before agreeing to review a manuscript and to decline to review any manuscript for which a conflict or appearance of conflict exists. In the event that a peer reviewer recognizes a conflict of interest that may compromise his or her ability to make an unbiased assessment of a manuscript, it is required that the reviewer decline to review the manuscript and inform the editorial office. If the staff or representatives of Xia & He Publishing, Inc. discover potential evidence of a conflict-of-interest violation, the issue will be addressed on a case-by-case basis through investigation and recusal. If a reviewer discloses a conflict of interest but still reviews the manuscript, that review will not be considered in the evaluation of that manuscript, and an alternative review will be arranged.
Author Appeals

Author may appeal an editorial decision by sending an email to editorial office. The appeal must contain detailed reasons/responses or rebuttals to the review comments and the editorial comments. The appeal and related material and/or information will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for judgement and for decision on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief may recommend acceptance, revision, rejection, or referring to additional peer reviewers. The editorial decision at this stage will be final and cannot be reversed. 

All editors and reviewers will be required to review and understand the above instructions when they accept editorial positions, or when they are invited to review a manuscript as an invited reviewer.

After the editors-in-chief (EiC) make a decision on a manuscript, the EiC’s decision and comments, academic editor’s recommendations and comments, and the peer reviewers’ comments will be made available to all relevant academic editors and reviewers who participated in the review of the manuscript.

The editorial board, academic editors, and EiC usually meet semiannually to discuss issues related to the peer-review process and to decide on updates or revisions to relevant policies based on feedback from authors, reviewers, and staff. The EiC is responsible for supervising, and the Managing Editor is responsible for strictly following the policies to ensure their proper implementation of the Journals’ rules and standards of peer review.