Peer Review Process / Publication Process
Laser Technology implements a three-round review system based on peer review (editor's preliminary review, external peer review, and Editor-in-Chief's final review). The editorial department judges whether to accept the author's manuscript by inviting experts in the same field to review the manuscript to ensure the academic quality of the journal. The identity of the reviewers is confidential, and the manuscript will also be treated as private information.
We encourage authors to recommend reviewers or suggest avoiding a reviewer when submitting a manuscript. The authors can also provide the editor with any supplementary materials that are helpful for review after submitting the manuscript.
The selection of reviewers is critical to the publication process. Our choices are based on various factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations.
The specific process of manuscript processing is as follows:
Review Process
1. Receipt: After receiving the submission, the editorial department will register the manuscript and send a receipt to all authors, informing them of the manuscript number and the account number for logging in the online system for inquiry.
2. Preliminary review: If there are any of the following problems, the manuscript will be rejected or suggested to submit to other journal. (1) It does not conform to the aim and scope of this journal; (2) Not enough innovation, or repeating previous works; (3) Too many submissions in the similar topic; (4) The opinions are vague, the logic is ungrounded, and the readability is low; (5) Academic misconduct test results: the total repetition rate exceeds 10%; (6) The experimental or theoretical research has obvious defects, the data is not detailed, and the chart has obvious errors.
3. External review: The editor sends each manuscript to two external review experts for double-blind peer review, on the innovation, academic level and rigor of the article. External reviewers are requested to provide written evaluation. For statistical issues in the article, the editorial department has a dedicated statistics editor for review. In principle, the review time is required to be 21 days. In case of disagreement in peer review, a third expert will be selected to review the manuscript. If more than two experts suggest "rejection", the editorial department will reject the manuscript. Upon approval in the external review, the manuscript is sent for final review.
Note: The peer review experts selected by the editorial department are all specialists in relevant field but are not listed as authors of the paper or members of authors’ research group, and have no conflicts of interest.
4. Final Review by Editor-in-Chief: Editor-in-chief of the editorial department reviews the manuscript regularly. The responsible editor shall submit the manuscript, preliminary review comments and peer review comments to the Editor-in-Chief for final review. The Editor-in-Chief decides whether to adopt the manuscript according to the situation of the manuscript and the comments of the preliminary review and peer review, and sends the final review comments back to the responsible editor for manuscript processing.
Review Results
1. Revision: Both reviewers agree and recommend publication after revisions.
2. Re-evaluation: The editor, considering the reviewers' feedback and journal guidelines, may request revisions. Significant revisions will require re-evaluation. If the revised paper still does not meet the standards, it may be rejected.
3. Rejection: Based on the reviewers' feedback and journal guidelines, the editor may decide to reject the paper. If the author disagrees with the review comments, they may appeal the decision.
Other Policies
1. Special Issues and Columns: The review process for special issues and columns follows the same procedure as the regular issues, including identical review and editorial processes, with the editor-in-chief making the final acceptance decision. The editor-in-chief is responsible for all content, including special issues and columns. For special issues, authoritative experts in the field may be invited to serve as guest EiC, whose duty is to oversee theme proposal, manuscript solicitation, peer review organization, and to address any publication issues under the editor-in-chief's supervision to ensure fairness in the review process.
2. Submissions by EBMs/Editors/Guest EiC: Submissions by Editorial Board Members/Editors/Guest EiC must adhere to the journal's review and editorial procedures, ensuring independence from the involved individuals and their research groups. They cannot participate in reviews of manuscripts with whose authors they have conflicts of interest.
3. Appeal and Discussion: The authors may make an appeal if they disagree with the comment of the referees. The authors need to write an appeal letter (with the manuscript serial number) and send it to jgjs@vip.163.com. Detailed reasons for appealing must be stated, including a comprehensive and reasonable answer to the reviewers' comment. The appeal letter should also be stamped by the author's institute. The editorial department will consider whether to change the decision case by case. After the article is published, this Journal welcomes readers to discuss the academic achievements presented in the article. At the same time, readers are also encouraged to supervise academic misconduct and actively provide feedback to the Journal with relevant information, in order to jointly create a favorable academic atmosphere. Readers can send their comments to the journal's email. The editorial department will process them as soon as they are received and provide feedback as appropriate.
Flow Chart