Chinese Journal of General Practice subjects all submitted articles to the highest standards of peer review:

l  At least two suitably qualified experts review each submission article.

l  The journal’s Editor-in-Chief makes all publication decisions based on the review reports.

l  The Editorial Board Members assist the Editor-in-Chief in decision making on specific submissions.

l  The Editorial Board Members lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Editor-in-Chief.

l  Administrative support for the review process is provided by the Managing Editor. The Managing Editor upholds the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to all stakeholders including authors, reviewers, and editorial board members alike.

l  The journal uses a single blind, published peer review process whereby the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review period with the names of the reviewers subsequently published with the final accepted article.

l  Chinese Journal of General Practice subscribes fully to the COPE code of conduct and best practice. Our readers will always be informed about how the research is funded and our relationships with authors, reviewers and editorial board members will be influenced by COPE recommendations.

Reviewers primarily evaluate the originality, validity and importance of the manuscripts, and provide detailed and evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors to make publication decisions (accept, revise or reject) and authors to make improvements.

The following points are considered during the review process:

l  Is the manuscript suitable for Chinese Journal of General Practice? Is it original and important?

The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readers. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.

l  Are the results and conclusions well-supported?

Reviewers should highlight if the data are incomplete, insufficient, or if there are errors, because the data may fail to lead to the results and thus the conclusions.

l  Are there any problems regarding statistics?

The statistics reviewer needs to make sure there are no flaws or errors regarding statistical methods and analyses.

l  Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect and observe the confidentiality of the manuscript.

Article processing procedure