1. Peer Review Policy

Journal of Northeast Electric Power University adopts a double-blind peer review system conducted by academic experts. Additional review rounds may be arranged for manuscripts with controversial review results. The complete review workflow is outlined as follows:

(1) Initial Review: The Editor-in-Chief carries out the first round of initial screening. Manuscripts failing this stage will be rejected directly. Qualified manuscripts are then transferred to the responsible editor for secondary initial review. Manuscripts with severe flaws such as excessive similarity index will be rejected, while eligible ones will be sent to external peer reviewers.

(2) External Peer Review: All manuscripts passing initial review are assigned to no fewer than two external specialists for peer review. Upon receiving reviewers’ comments, the editorial team will either reject the manuscript or request revisions accordingly. After authors resubmit revised manuscripts, the responsible editor will conduct a preliminary check before sending the revised version back to reviewers for re-review.

(3) Final Review: Manuscripts that complete peer review will be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for final adjudication, who makes the ultimate acceptance or rejection decision and bears full responsibility for all content published in the journal.

2. Review for Thematic Issues & Special Issues

Manuscripts submitted for thematic or special issues follow the identical review and editorial procedures as regular journal submissions, with the Editor-in-Chief retaining full authority over final acceptance decisions and overall accountability for all journal content including thematic and special issues. For each thematic or special issue, the Editorial Office invites authoritative scholars in the relevant field to serve as Guest Editors-in-Chief. Guest Editors-in-Chief are responsible for proposing issue themes, soliciting manuscripts, organizing peer review procedures, and resolving all issues arising during the publication of thematic or special volumes. All work undertaken by Guest Editors-in-Chief is supervised by the Editor-in-Chief to guarantee impartiality throughout manuscript review.

3. Submissions by Editorial Board Members, In-house Editors and Guest Editors-in-Chief

All manuscripts submitted by editorial board members, journal editors and Guest Editors-in-Chief must undergo the full standard review process of the journal. The entire review procedure of such manuscripts will be conducted independently without participation of the submitting editorial board member, editor, Guest Editor-in-Chief or their respective research teams. Furthermore, editorial board members, in-house editors and Guest Editors-in-Chief shall not participate in reviewing manuscripts authored by researchers with whom they hold competitive, collaborative or other conflicting interests.

4. Academic Misconduct Screening and Disciplinary Measures

To curb academic misconduct, the Editorial Office conducts similarity detection on all submissions at the initial review stage via the Academic Misconduct Literature Check System (AMLC) developed by CNKI. The acceptable similarity rate is generally capped at 10%. The journal strictly prohibits multiple concurrent submissions, duplicate publication, plagiarism and all other forms of academic misconduct. Once any academic misconduct is identified in a submitted manuscript, the manuscript will be rejected outright, the corresponding author’s institutional affiliation will be notified, and no new submissions from the involved author(s) will be accepted within one year.

5. Appeals and Feedback

Authors who disagree with review comments or final review decisions may submit a formal written appeal to the journal’s official email. Appeals must include detailed point-by-point responses addressing every comment raised by reviewers. The Editorial Office will process appeals expeditiously and deliver the verdict to the author. Please note that only one appeal application will be accepted for each manuscript in principle.

Additionally, all readers and authors are welcome to send comments or feedback on published articles to the journal mailbox. The Editorial Office will process all incoming messages promptly and provide targeted replies where appropriate. We encourage mutual supervision among readers and authors to share relevant information with the editorial team and collectively foster a sound academic ecosystem.

6. Corrections and Retractions

The journal generally avoids issuing corrections or retractions for published articles, yet such measures will be implemented under the following necessary circumstances:

(1) Corrections: If an unintentional scientific error is identified in a published article without substantially undermining its core results and conclusions, the Editorial Office will publish a formal correction notice in the journal as soon as possible, specifying all modifications made to the original text together with complete bibliographic information of the original article. A revised updated version of the paper will be released, with full records of all alterations and the revision date clearly marked. The original pre-correction version will be archived and remain accessible to readers; however, the latest revised version shall be cited in all subsequent references.

(2) Retractions: Published articles will be retracted under the following two scenarios: First, the paper contains severe scientific flaws that render its results and conclusions unreliable. Second, manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, data fabrication or other academic misconduct will trigger a formal editorial investigation, alongside a public notice alerting readers to potential risks associated with the article. Investigation outcomes will be disclosed upon completion. Full retraction actions together with an official retraction statement will be released if academic misconduct is conclusively verified.