Peer review is a crucial link and quality control mechanism in the publishing process of sci-tech journals. It directly determines the content of publication and ensures academic quality and reputation. In order to strengthen the self-discipline of the participants in the peer review of Blasting and improve the quality and credibility of peer review, a series of regulations are formulated.

1. Principles of peer review

The manuscripts after the first review will be sent to the experts in relevant fields for evaluation. Blasting adopts single blind review. That is, the identity and name of the review experts are anonymous to the authors, while the review experts know the authors’ names and units. In this way, "interference" can be reduced to some extent, and evaluation experts are encouraged to give relatively objective evaluation and suggestions. Some mechanisms are established:

(1) Joint review mechanism. The peer-reviewed manuscript of Blasting shall be subject to a joint review before final acceptance, modification or rejection can be determined. The joint review is generally attended by part of the editorial committee and reviewers. The process of joint review includes introduction of manuscripts, discussion of difficult problems, recommendation of excellent manuscripts, suggestions on manuscript modification, guidance on manuscript rejection and improvement, etc.

(2) Author cultivation mechanism. Blasting carefully deals with each rejection. The chief editor will make a comprehensive consideration of external audit, joint review opinions before making a final decision. Even if the manuscripts are not accepted or returned, detailed comments and improvement suggestions will be provided to the authors, which will help the authors to improve their manuscripts. Some authors with scientific research potential will be brought into the "source plan" for cultivation.

(3) Feedback mechanism. Blasting feeds the results of peer review back to the authors. On the one hand, the author can find the defects and problems existing in the research results through the comments of the review experts, so as to further revise the paper and improve its academic quality. At the same time, it has strengthened the supervision and restraint on the evaluation experts. This mechanism encourages them to study papers carefully and give suggestions on revision objectively and impartially. Moreover, the experts will carefully write evaluation reports to improve the quality of peer review and prevent irresponsible evaluation behaviors.

(4) Appeal mechanism. In order to effectively avoid the error of manuscript evaluation in the "peer review", the author can appeal to the editorial office, which will organize relevant experts to hold a meeting and discuss the received appeal.

2. The author specification

In the peer review stage, the author shall abide by the corresponding ethical norms.

(1) The authors should respect the independence of peer review, does not interfere with the normal peer review process of Blasting journal, and does not ask for the names of reviewers and specific review opinions of the manuscript through various channels.

(2) The authors should maintain the objectivity and fairness of peer review. The authors shall be responsible for the authenticity and copyright of the paper, and shall cooperate with the editorial office or review experts to provide original pictures, original data, project proposal, project name and other supporting materials.

(3) Potential conflicts of interest should be declared when the authors submit the manuscript, including the economic conflict of interest (such as business interests relations with a company in the study, financial support from a company in the experimental design and implementation, data processing, experimental materials, holding shares in a company, etc.), project competition conflict, professional conflicts (academic differences), etc. to avoid the impartiality of the peer review.

(4) The authors should respect the efforts made by the editorial office and review experts to improve the academic quality of the papers, and seriously revise the papers according to the suggestions and comments given by the review experts. If there are different opinions and suggestions, the authors can communicate in a calm tone or submit the complaint form to the editorial office to avoid any overreaction.

3. Review expert specification

Blasting has a sound pool of review experts, who are usually from the editorial committee or well-known scholars in the industry. Their responsibility is to judge the quality of the manuscript and determine whether the paper is suitable for publication. In the process of peer review, the reviewers shall abide by the following ethics:

(1) The reviewers should be familiar with the positioning and requirements of Blasting. Upon receiving the invitation, they should first check whether their professional knowledge and research direction match the reviewed manuscripts. If not, they should inform the editor-in-chief in a timely and clear manner, and suggest replacement or recommendation of other reviewers.

(2) Reviewers should examine their own time allocation and whether they can submit comments within the specified time. If not, the editor should be informed in time to negotiate an acceptable review time so as to avoid deliberately delaying the review.

(3) The reviewers should follow the principle of maintaining academic integrity and respecting academic self-possession, use their professional knowledge and excellent judgment ability to make honest, objective and fair evaluation on the merits and demerits of the articles, and give reasonable and constructive evaluation opinions in time.

(4) Reviewers should examine possible interest relationships and whether there is a potential conflict of interest with the reviewed manuscript. If there is, the editor-in-chief should be informed promptly, and all relevant interests should be declared to avoid conflicts of interest. If it is not possible to determine whether certain relationships constitute a conflict of interest that may affect the fair evaluation of manuscripts, the editor-in-chief should be consulted for further advice.

(5) The reviewers shall abide by the confidentiality principle of peer review and shall refrain from disclosing the contents of the manuscript and relevant information to any irrelevant person during the review and after the completion of the review. After the peer review, all copies of the manuscript and relevant materials shall be destroyed. They should avoid using any information obtained in the peer review for your own, others' or other organizations' benefits or to act against others or organizations.

(6) The reviewers shall provide accurate and true personal/professional information to the editorial office, and avoid giving false information. Reviewers should not be influenced by the source, country, institution, race, religion, political belief, gender or other external factors, and should not be driven by commercial interests.

(7) Without the permission of the editorial office of Blasting, the reviewers shall not transfer the papers to others (colleagues, students, etc.).

(8) In the process of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewers should check whether there is any plagiarism, falsification, forgery, repeated publication and other academic misconduct in the manuscript. If these behaviors are suspected, they should timely inform the chief editor and provide relevant information.

(9) The reviewers should only recommend the addition of important references related to the research content of the paper, and should not recommend the author to refer to the article by himself or his colleagues for the purpose of increasing the number of citations or exposure.

(10) Without the permission of the editor-in-chief, the reviewers should not discuss the content with the author in private.

(11) After submitting the review comments, the reviewers should contact the editor-in-chief immediately if the relevant information is available to influence the initial feedback or suggestion. After the publication of the article, if any problems or potential conflicts of interest are discovered in the process of reviewing the article, the editorial office shall be informed promptly.

4. Specific requirements for peer review

Blasting has strict standards for the evaluation of manuscripts. When the reviewers get the manuscripts, firstly, they should check whether the contents of the manuscripts fit the journal positioning. Secondly, they need to check whether the structure of the paper is complete.

There is specific review focus to each component of a paper:

(1) Article title: Is it appropriate and can it reflect the core content of the paper?

(2) Abstract: Are the purpose, methodology, main findings and conclusions of the paper clearly stated?

(3) Keywords: Are there keywords? Do they represent the core content of the article?

(4) Introduction: Has the research progress of this topic been fully investigated and systematically introduced? And are the problems to be solved extracted by analysis?

(5) Research methods: Are the methods properly described? Are they scientific and rigorous?

(6) Results: What are the results? Are they comprehensive, adequate and effective?

(7) Discussion: Is the discussion of the results adequate and in-depth?

(8) Conclusion: Does it match the analysis results obtained from this paper? Is it valid?

(9) References: Are there any significant missing references? Are they relevant to the research topic? Do they reflect the novelty and authority of the reference?

(10) Diagrams/tables: Are diagrams and tables necessary? Is the content clear and readable?

Combined with the analysis and evaluation of the paper and its components, the overall evaluation of the paper is given as follows:

(1) Excellent. This paper conducts in-depth research on the frontier hot issues in this field, puts forward novel research methods, and draws conclusions of great academic value or application value. The recommended treatment is acceptance or minor revision.

(2) Good. This paper studies the hot issues in this field, puts forward significant improvement measures to the existing research methods, and puts forward conclusions that have certain academic value or application value, and there is still some room for improvement. The recommended treatment is minor revision or major revision.

(3) Qualified. This paper is a study of conventional problems in this field or an extension of existing methods to new fields, with less overall novelty. The recommended treatment is return or major revision.

(4) Unqualified. There are serious errors/deficiencies in the research ideas, research methods, data analysis or research conclusions of this paper. The recommended treatment is rejection.

Requirements for writing peer review comments:

According to the process of peer review, the reviewers must provide review comments after the review. Blasting has a clear specification for the writing of peer review comments, which must include the following contents:

(1) The main research problems discussed in this paper and the general summary of research methods, objectives and conclusions.

(2) Brief summary of the academic value and application value of this paper.

(3) Specific comments or suggestions for specific sections.

(4) The overall evaluation and processing suggestions of paper (accept, minor revision, major revision, rejection, etc.).