Guidelines for Reviewers

Quest Press Limited / Macau Sino-Foreign Medical Publishing Limited (MSFMP)

To our valued peer reviewers,

On behalf of Quest Press Limited / MSFMP, we extend our sincere gratitude for your essential contribution to the academic publishing process. Your expertise, diligence, and critical judgment are fundamental to maintaining the high quality and integrity of the research we publish. This document outlines the principles and procedures for peer review across our journal portfolio, aligning with international best practices as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other relevant bodies.

1. Peer Review Model

Our journals employ a Double-Blind Peer Review system. This model is designed to promote impartial evaluation:

• Reviewer Anonymity: The identities of reviewers are kept confidential from the authors throughout the process.

• Author Anonymity: The identities of authors are kept confidential from the reviewers.
  We believe this approach minimizes potential bias and allows manuscripts to be judged solely on their scientific and scholarly merit.

2. The Role and Responsibility of the Reviewer

When your expertise is needed, you will receive a formal invitation via email and our manuscript submission system. Your assessment is crucial in ensuring that published research is methodologically sound, scientifically valid, ethically conducted, and clearly reported.

• Editorial Decision-Making: The editorial office will synthesize your comments, along with those of other reviewers, to reach a final decision (Accept, Revise, or Reject). Your expert judgment is a cornerstone of this process.

• Your Feedback is Valued: We welcome your constructive feedback on the manuscripts you review, our editorial decisions, or the peer review process itself. Please feel free to share your suggestions with us.

3. Invitation to Become a Reviewer

If you are interested in serving as a reviewer and are not currently in our database, we warmly invite you to join our expert community. Please send a copy of your current curriculum vitae (CV) to our editorial office at QuestPress@hotmail.com, clearly indicating your specific areas of academic expertise.

4. Guidelines for Conducting the Review

a. Conflict of Interest Declaration

• Upon accepting a review invitation and before submitting your report, you must declare any potential competing interests—whether personal, professional, or financial—related to the manuscript, its authors, or the reported work. This is an essential step to maintain objectivity.

b. Objectivity and Constructiveness

• A high-quality review should be objective, fair, and constructive. We encourage you to consult the specific Author Guidelines for the journal to understand its scope and format expectations.

• Criticisms should be based on factual evidence and aimed at helping the author improve the manuscript, not on personal preference or disciplinary perspective. Please provide clear, actionable suggestions for revision.

c. Using Reporting Guidelines

• We require authors to adhere to relevant reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE) and submit completed checklists. These checklists will be provided to you.

• Your Role: Please begin by verifying that the manuscript addresses the minimum information items in the checklist. You may use the guideline to assess the completeness of the reporting.

• Important Distinction: Reporting guidelines are tools to assess reporting completeness, not to directly judge the methodological quality of the study. However, the items they suggest can serve as useful prompts for considering aspects of study design.

d. Confidentiality

• Unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents.

• You must not disclose the existence or content of the manuscript to anyone other than the assigned editors, except if you engage in collaborative review (see point e).

• You must not use any part of the manuscript for your own purposes or share it with a third party without prior written permission from the editor.

• Use of AI Tools: The uploading of the manuscript or its data to third-party software, generative AI platforms, or large language models (e.g., ChatGPT) that do not guarantee confidentiality is strictly prohibited. If you use AI tools in an auxiliary capacity (e.g., for grammar checking of your own review comments), you must disclose this to the editor and acknowledge that AI outputs may contain inaccuracies or bias.

e. Collaborative Review & Recommendations

• If you wish to consult a colleague to enhance your review, you must first inform the editor, ensure your colleague understands the confidentiality requirements, and clearly acknowledge their contribution within your review report.

• We encourage you to recommend qualified colleagues to join our reviewer database.

f. Ethical Concerns

• If you have serious ethical concerns about a manuscript (e.g., suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research conduct), please contact the editor immediately and in confidence. Do not include these allegations in your report for the author.

We sincerely thank all our reviewers for their time, dedication, and invaluable contribution to upholding the standards of scholarly publishing.

Quest Press Limited
Macau Sino-Foreign Medical Publishing Limited (MSFMP)
November 20, 2025

审稿人指南

Quest Press Limited / Macau Sino-Foreign Medical Publishing Limited (MSFMP)

致我们尊敬的审稿专家：

我们代表 Quest Press Limited / MSFMP，对您为学术出版过程做出的重要贡献表示诚挚的感谢。您的专业知识、严谨态度和审慎判断是我们所发表研究保持高质量与诚信的基石。本文件阐述了本机构旗下期刊同行评审的原则与流程，其制定遵循了出版伦理委员会（COPE）等机构定义的全球最佳实践。

1. 同行评审模式

本机构期刊采用 双盲同行评审 制度。此模式旨在促进公正评估：

• 审稿人匿名：审稿人的身份在整个过程中对作者保密。

• 作者匿名：作者的身份对审稿人保密。
  我们相信，这一方法能最大程度减少潜在偏见，确保稿件仅基于其科学与学术价值接受评判。

2. 审稿人的角色与责任

当我们需要您的专业知识时，您将通过电子邮件和我们的稿件提交系统收到正式邀请。您的评估对于确保发表的研究方法正确、科学有效、符合伦理且报告清晰至关重要。

• 编辑决策：编辑部将综合您的意见以及其他审稿人的意见，做出最终决定（接受、修改或退稿）。您的专业判断是此过程的基石。

• 我们重视您的反馈：我们欢迎您就所审稿件、我们的编辑决策或同行评审流程本身提出建设性反馈。请随时与我们分享您的建议。

3. 诚邀成为审稿人

如果您有兴趣担任审稿人但目前不在我们的专家库中，我们热忱邀请您加入。请将您最新的个人简历（CV）发送至编辑部邮箱：QuestPress@hotmail.com，并请明确注明您的具体学术专长领域。

4. 评审工作指南

a. 利益冲突声明

• 在接受审稿邀请后、提交审稿报告前，您必须声明与稿件、其作者或所报告工作相关的任何潜在利益冲突（无论是个人、专业还是财务方面的）。这是保持客观性的关键步骤。

b. 客观性与建设性

• 高质量的评审应做到客观、公正且具有建设性。我们建议您查阅相关期刊的《作者指南》，以了解其收录范围和格式要求。

• 批评意见应基于事实证据，旨在帮助作者改进稿件，而非出于个人偏好或学科视角。请提供清晰、可操作的修改建议。

c. 使用报告规范

• 我们要求作者遵守相关的报告规范（如 CONSORT、PRISMA、STROBE）并提交完整的核对清单。这些清单将提供给您。

• 您的职责：请首先核查稿件是否包含了核对清单要求的最低信息条目。您可利用该规范评估报告的完整性。

• 重要区分：报告规范是评估报告完整性的工具，而非直接评判研究方法学质量。然而，其建议的条目可作为考量研究设计相关方面的有用提示。

d. 保密义务

• 未发表的稿件属于机密文件。

• 除指定的编辑外，您不得向任何人透露稿件的存在或内容（协作评审情况除外，参见第e点）。

• 未经编辑事先书面许可，您不得将稿件的任何部分用于个人目的或与第三方分享。

• AI工具的使用：严禁将稿件或其数据上传到无法保证保密性的第三方软件、生成式AI平台或大型语言模型（如ChatGPT）。如果您以辅助方式使用AI工具（例如，用于检查您审稿意见的语法），必须向编辑披露此事，并承认AI输出可能存在不准确或偏见。

e. 协作评审与推荐

• 如果您希望咨询同事以完善您的评审，必须事先告知编辑，确保您的同事理解保密要求，并在您的审稿报告中明确说明其贡献。

• 我们鼓励您推荐合格的同事加入我们的审稿专家库。

f. 伦理关切

• 如果您对稿件存在严重的伦理关切（例如，疑似剽窃、数据捏造或不道德的研究行为），请立即且保密地联系编辑。请勿在您给作者的审稿报告中包含这些指控。

我们衷心感谢所有审稿人付出的时间、奉献精神以及对维护学术出版标准做出的宝贵贡献。

Quest Press Limited
Macau Sino-Foreign Medical Publishing Limited (MSFMP)
2025年11月20日