The practice of peer review is intended to ensure that only high-quality research is published. As an objective method of guaranteeing excellence in scholarly publishing, it has been adopted by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Southern Power System Technology, which is why all incoming manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

Editorial department first evaluates all submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least two expert referees for reviewing. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within one week of receipt.

Type of peer review

Southern Power System Technology employs “double-blind” reviewing, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the referees.

How the referee is selected

Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. As our referee database is constantly being updated, we welcome suggestions for referees from the author(s), though such non-binding recommendations are not necessarily used.

Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
   1)Is original in terms of thought and method (including data)
   2)Is methodologically sound
   3)Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
   4)Correctly and exhaustively references previous relevant work
   5)Follows appropriate ethical guidelines, especially as concerns plagiarism
   6)Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript. In the final round, the handling Editor will check matters of linguistic and stylistic correctness, and may suggest or apply corrections at this point.

How long does the review process take

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. For Southern Power System Technology, the typical time for the first round of the refereeing process is approximately 4 weeks, with a maximum of 3 months usually. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. The handling editor's decision will be sent to the author with the referees' recommendations, usually including the latter's verbatim comments.

Final Review

The editor-in-chief will conduct the final round of review and decide whether to accept the manuscript. The editorial department handles manuscripts strictly in accordance with the professional ethical standards. The final decision regarding acceptance of the manuscript will be sent to the authors along with the recommendations made by the referees.

Special Issue/Columns

Manuscripts submitted for special issues undergo the same review process as regular submissions, and the final decision on acceptance is made by the editorial committee in the final round of review. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the entire content of the Journal, including special issues.

Internal Submission

Contributions from editorial committee members of this journal must adhere to all review procedures of the Journal. Editorial department members are prohibited from submitting to the Journal. All review work on manuscripts will be conducted independently of the relevant editorial committee members and their research groups. Additionally, editorial committee members are prohibited from participating in the review process of manuscripts authored by individuals with whom they have competitive, collaborative, or other related conflicts of interest.

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 nfdwjs@csg.cn. 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.