Forest Engineering implements a strict three-level review system.
1. First review
Editors should review whether the manuscript meets the acceptance conditions, that is, whether its content meets the coverage, and whether the paper format is standard. The specific requirements are as follows:
(1) It is necessary to understand the situation (including history and current situation) related to the content of the manuscript, that is, to understand the academic background of the manuscript, and check the academic misconduct.
(2) All submitted manuscripts should be carefully reviewed, and the summarized key points of the manuscripts or problems of the manuscripts should be recorded in the form of “review notes”.
(3) A preliminary judgement will be made on the submitted manuscript according to whether its ideological and political orientation is correct, whether certain academic level can be reached, whether the content is sufficient, whether the views and materials are unified, whether the logical structure is reasonable, and whether the expression is smooth, etc.
(4) On the basis of the first review, the editor should make a preliminary screening, and determine whether to submit it for external review (if no external review is required, the chief editor should form a written review opinion, and fill it in the manuscript review system).
2. Peer review
(1) Manuscripts screened out through the first review need further academic review by peer experts. The manuscripts in emerging disciplines, the manuscripts with content beyond the knowledge scope of the editor, or the manuscripts with controversial issues should be submitted to more than two experts for review.
(2) Experts should make objective assessments on the innovation, academic and scientific values, practicability, readability, etc. of the manuscript during the review, put forward specific review opinions, and clarify whether it is suitable for publication.
(3) After the final review, or if the peer experts think that the manuscript needs to be revised and re-reviewed, the author is requested to revise according to the review opinions of the first review, review experts and final review, and then send it to peer experts to determine whether the manuscript is worthy of publication.
(4) The re-review opinion should specify whether it can be published.
3. Final review
The final review will be conducted by the chief editor at a standing editorial board meeting, which is mainly to re-examine the peer review opinions and make a final decision on the manuscript processing. The final review result of the manuscript is a collective decision, and the corresponding legal responsibility is borne by the collective. An individual editorial board member can interpret the final decision as a representative of the discipline.
