Review Model / 评审模式

CRoPT normally applies double-anonymous external peer review to Original Research Articles, Theoretical Essays, Review Articles, and Policy and Institutional Analysis articles. Research-oriented Special Issue Articles are subject to the same scholarly review requirements as comparable articles submitted outside a themed collection.

CRoPT 通常对原创研究论文、理论论文、综述论文及政策与制度分析文章实行双匿名外部同行评审。研究性质的专题论文适用与常规同类研究稿件相同的学术评审要求。

Authors should prepare an anonymized review manuscript and submit identifying information separately, as required by the journal's manuscript preparation instructions. Anonymity cannot be absolutely guaranteed where authorship may be inferred from previously disseminated work, distinctive research materials, or other publicly available information.

作者应按照本刊稿件格式要求准备匿名送审稿，并单独提交身份信息。如果作者身份可能通过先前公开传播的成果、具有明显辨识度的研究材料或其他公开信息被推断，则无法绝对保证匿名性。

All manuscript categories remain subject to editorial screening, academic quality requirements, publication ethics, and editorial independence, regardless of whether external peer review is used.

无论是否采用外部同行评审，所有稿件类型均须接受编辑初审，并遵守本刊的学术质量、出版伦理及编辑独立性要求。

Initial Editorial Screening / 编辑初审

All submissions are subject to initial editorial screening before proceeding to the assessment process appropriate to their article category. The editorial office evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, scholarly substance, conceptual or methodological quality, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, and completeness of the submission.

所有来稿在进入相应文章类别的学术评估程序前，均须接受编辑初审。编辑部主要检查稿件与本刊宗旨及研究范围的契合度、原创性、学术实质内容、概念或方法质量、写作清晰性、伦理合规性及投稿材料完整性。

Requests to correct incomplete files, missing metadata, or other administrative deficiencies are distinct from substantive editorial rejection. Passing initial screening indicates eligibility for further assessment, not acceptance for publication.

因文件不完整、元数据缺失或其他形式问题而要求补正材料，与实质性的编辑退稿应加以区分。通过编辑初审仅意味着稿件可以进入后续评估，不代表获得正式录用。

Reviewer Selection / 审稿人选择

External reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, research background, methodological competence, language ability, and suitability for evaluating the manuscript's scholarly approach. The editorial office seeks reviewers capable of providing informed, independent, constructive, and appropriately detailed assessments.

外部审稿人的选择依据包括其专业领域、研究背景、方法能力、语言能力，以及对稿件学术方法的评估适切性。编辑部力求邀请能够提供专业、独立、建设性且具有适当深度评价的审稿人。

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. A reviewer who lacks the necessary expertise, cannot complete the review within an appropriate period, or believes that impartiality may be compromised should decline the invitation or immediately inform the editorial office.

审稿人应在接受邀请前披露任何实际、潜在或可合理认为存在的利益冲突。如果审稿人缺乏必要专业能力、无法在适当时间内完成评审，或认为自身公正性可能受到影响，应拒绝邀请或立即告知编辑部。

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the responsible editor may assess the reasons for disagreement, request clarification, or seek an additional independent evaluation. Conflicting recommendations do not automatically determine an outcome or require a simple majority decision.

当不同审稿意见存在重大分歧时，负责编辑可分析分歧原因、要求进一步澄清，或邀请其他独立专家评估。审稿建议之间的分歧不会自动决定结果，也不必然通过简单多数方式作出决定。

Review Criteria / 评审标准

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to criteria relevant to their scholarly purpose, genre, disciplinary tradition, and research approach. The following considerations form the journal's general assessment framework:

审稿人应根据稿件的学术目的、文章性质、学科传统及研究方法，采用适切的评价标准。以下内容构成本刊的一般评审框架：

The assessment must distinguish normative argument, philosophical interpretation, historical analysis, and empirical research. Theoretical manuscripts should not be penalized merely because they do not contain quantitative datasets, while empirical claims should be assessed against the quality of their supporting evidence and research design.

评审应区分规范性论证、哲学阐释、历史分析及经验研究。不得仅因理论类稿件未使用量化数据而给予不利评价；对于经验性主张，则应根据证据质量与研究设计进行审查。

Reviewer Recommendations / 审稿建议

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes, accompanied by an academic justification appropriate to the manuscript:

审稿人可根据稿件情况提出以下建议，并提供相应的学术理由：

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not themselves constitute an editorial decision. The responsible editor evaluates the substance of reviewer reports, the manuscript's scholarly merits, and the journal's academic and ethical standards before determining the appropriate outcome.

审稿建议属于学术咨询意见，并不直接构成编辑决定。负责编辑应综合评价审稿报告的实质内容、稿件学术价值及本刊学术与伦理标准，再决定适当的处理结果。

Editorial Decisions / 编辑决定

Following the applicable scholarly assessment, the editorial office or responsible editor may issue a decision reflecting the manuscript's current suitability for publication and the extent of any further work required.

完成适用的学术评估后，编辑部或负责编辑可根据稿件当前的发表适切性及需要进一步完成的修改工作，作出相应编辑决定。

A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. A Revise and Resubmit decision is distinct from a revision within an ongoing acceptance pathway and does not preserve an automatic right to publication. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's designated editor or editorial office.

修改要求不构成录用保证。“修改后重投”不同于正在进行的普通修改程序，并不保留自动发表的权利。最终编辑决定仍由本刊指定的负责编辑或编辑部作出。

Revision Process / 修改流程

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing the relevant editorial and reviewer comments. The response should describe the changes made, indicate their locations in the manuscript, and provide a reasoned explanation where a recommendation has not been adopted.

当编辑部要求修改时，作者应提交修改稿及逐项回应编辑与审稿意见的说明文件。修改说明应概述已完成的调整、指出正文对应位置，并对未采纳的建议提供合理的学术解释。

Authors should follow the revision instructions issued for their manuscript, maintain anonymity in files used for double-anonymous review, and update relevant metadata or ethical declarations when the revisions affect those details.

作者应按照具体稿件收到的修改通知执行；在继续适用双匿名评审时保持送审文件匿名性，并在修改影响元数据或伦理声明时同步更新相关信息。

Review Timeline / 评审周期

CRoPT aims to conduct editorial assessment and peer review in a timely and responsible manner. Actual processing times vary according to the manuscript's scholarly complexity, availability of qualified reviewers, number of review rounds, scope of revisions, editorial workload, and completion of publication procedures.

CRoPT 力求以及时、负责的方式开展编辑评估和同行评审。实际处理时间会因稿件学术复杂程度、合格审稿人的可用性、评审轮次、修改范围、编辑工作量及出版手续完成情况而有所不同。

The indicative stages should not be treated as fixed deadlines. Additional review rounds, ethical enquiries, delayed author responses, or production requirements may extend the process. The actual publication date also depends on the journal's annual publication schedule.

上述阶段时间不构成固定期限。额外评审、伦理核查、作者延迟回应或其他制作要求可能延长整体流程。实际正式出版日期亦取决于本刊的年度出版安排。

Authors may follow the status of their submissions through the journal's online submission system. Significant editorial decisions and requests for action will be communicated through the designated submission or editorial communication channels.

作者可通过本期刊在线投稿系统查看稿件状态。重要编辑决定及需要作者采取行动的事项，将通过指定的投稿系统或编辑沟通渠道通知。

Confidentiality / 保密原则

Submitted manuscripts, unpublished findings, reviewer reports, author correspondence, and internal editorial discussions are treated as confidential scholarly materials. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use such materials outside their authorized editorial and review responsibilities.

已提交稿件、未发表研究成果、审稿报告、作者通信及内部编辑讨论，均属于应予保密的学术材料。编辑、审稿人与编辑工作人员不得在其获授权的编辑及评审职责之外披露、复制、传播或使用相关材料。

Reviewers must not appropriate unpublished ideas, arguments, interpretations, data, or other research materials for personal or third-party benefit. Confidential materials should be accessed and shared only where necessary for legitimate editorial assessment and in accordance with applicable data-protection requirements.

审稿人不得将未发表的观点、论证、阐释、数据或其他研究材料用于个人或第三方利益。保密资料仅应在合法且必要的编辑评估范围内访问与使用，并须符合适用的数据保护要求。

Conflicts of Interest / 利益冲突

Editors and reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independence or impartiality. Relevant circumstances may involve financial, institutional, personal, academic, competitive, supervisory, collaborative, or professional relationships with the manuscript's authors, research, or subject matter.

编辑与审稿人必须披露可能损害其独立性或公正性的实际、潜在或可合理认为存在的利益冲突。相关情况可能涉及与稿件作者、研究工作或研究主题有关的财务、机构、个人、学术竞争、师生指导、合作或职业关系。

A reviewer who identifies a potential conflict should disclose it before accepting an assignment or promptly upon becoming aware of it. The editorial office determines the appropriate management response, which may include declining the assignment, removing a reviewer, excluding a compromised report, appointing an additional independent reviewer, or transferring editorial responsibility.

审稿人如发现可能存在利益冲突，应在接受邀请前披露，或在知悉后立即告知编辑部。编辑部负责确定适当的管理措施，包括拒绝相关评审安排、替换审稿人、排除受影响的报告、增加独立评审或移交编辑职责。

Disclosure of a potential conflict does not automatically establish misconduct. The relevant question is whether the circumstances impair, or reasonably appear to impair, the integrity and independence of the editorial assessment.

披露潜在利益冲突本身并不自动意味着存在不当行为。处理重点在于相关情况是否实际损害，或可合理认为可能损害编辑评估的完整性与独立性。

Research Integrity During Review / 评审中的研究诚信

Editors and reviewers should identify and report credible concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified research material, manipulated evidence, misleading citation practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship, or other possible research and publication misconduct.

编辑与审稿人应识别并报告有合理依据的学术诚信疑虑，包括抄袭、重复发表、研究材料伪造或篡改、证据操纵、误导性引用、未披露利益冲突、不当署名及其他可能的研究或出版不端行为。

Suspected misconduct should be referred to the editorial office for assessment under the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies. Allegations should be supported by identifiable information or a reasoned explanation and should not be treated as established findings merely because a concern has been raised.

对疑似学术不端行为，应提交编辑部依照本刊《出版伦理》及研究诚信相关政策核查。相关指控应具有可识别的事实依据或合理说明，不得仅因有人提出疑虑就将其视为已经确认的事实。

Where necessary, the editorial office may seek clarification or supporting materials, temporarily suspend further assessment, or take an appropriate editorial action. A manuscript may be rejected or returned for correction where serious integrity concerns are substantiated.

必要时，编辑部可要求解释或补充证明材料、暂缓后续评估，或采取适当编辑措施。如严重诚信问题获得证实，稿件可能被退稿或退回作者处理。

Appeals and Complaints / 申诉与投诉

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they have reason to believe that a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, conflict of interest, inappropriate review conduct, or failure to consider relevant material materially affected the outcome.

如果作者有合理理由认为重大程序错误、事实误解、利益冲突、不当评审行为，或未考虑相关重要材料的情况实质性影响了编辑结果，可以提出申诉。

Appeals should identify the manuscript and decision concerned, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting evidence. Mere disagreement with critical reviewer comments or dissatisfaction with a rejection does not, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

申诉应明确所涉及的稿件及编辑决定，说明请求重新审查的理由，并提供相应证据。仅因不同意批判性审稿意见或对退稿结果不满意，本身不足以构成充分的申诉理由。

An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration of every scholarly judgment, reversal of a decision, or eventual acceptance. The editorial office communicates the outcome in accordance with the applicable complaints and appeals procedure.

提出申诉并不保证所有学术判断均被重新审查，也不保证原决定被改变或稿件最终获得录用。编辑部将按照适用的投诉与申诉程序说明处理结果。

Reviewer Ethics / 审稿伦理

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, timely, confidential, and respectful assessments of scholarly work. Their evaluations should address the manuscript's content, reasoning, evidence, methods, interpretations, and contribution rather than the personal characteristics of its authors.

审稿人应提供公正、建设性、及时、保密且尊重作者的学术评价。评审重点应在于稿件内容、推理、证据、研究方法、解释及学术贡献，而非作者个人属性。

Reviewers should decline invitations when they lack adequate expertise, face an unmanaged conflict of interest, or cannot complete a responsible assessment within the requested period. Reviews should not be delegated to others without authorization from the editorial office.

当审稿人缺乏足够专业能力、存在未妥善处理的利益冲突，或无法在要求时间内完成负责任的评审时，应拒绝邀请。未经编辑部授权，不得擅自委托他人代为评审。

Editorial Independence / 编辑独立性

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merits of the submission, its originality and contribution, relevance to the journal's scope, quality of reasoning and evidence, ethical compliance, and the applicable review results. The personal identity, institutional status, political affiliation or viewpoints, religion, gender, ethnicity, nationality, seniority, or financial circumstances of an author must not serve as grounds for discriminatory editorial treatment.

编辑决定依据稿件学术价值、原创性与贡献、与本刊研究范围的契合度、论证和证据质量、伦理合规性及适用的评审结果作出。作者的个人身份、机构地位、政治归属或观点、宗教、性别、族裔、国籍、资历或经济状况，不得成为歧视性编辑处理的依据。

The journal welcomes academically grounded disagreement and competing intellectual positions. Scholarly criticism of arguments, theories, evidence, and interpretations remains an essential part of evaluation and should not be confused with discrimination against an author.

本刊欢迎具有学术依据的不同意见及竞争性思想立场。对论点、理论、证据和解释进行严格学术批评，是评审过程的必要组成部分，不应与针对作者的歧视相混淆。

Record Keeping and Transparency / 记录保存与透明性

The journal maintains appropriate editorial and peer-review records associated with manuscript processing. These may include submission information, editorial assignments, reviewer reports, author responses, revised manuscript versions, editorial correspondence, and decisions relevant to the scholarly publication record.

本刊对稿件处理过程保留适当的编辑与同行评审记录，包括投稿信息、编辑任务分配、审稿报告、作者回应、修改稿版本、编辑通信，以及与学术出版记录有关的编辑决定。

Such records support editorial accountability, quality control, consistency of decisions, research integrity, and the handling of legitimate complaints or appeals. Access to confidential records should be limited to authorized persons with a legitimate editorial, legal, or research-integrity purpose.

相关记录用于支持编辑责任追踪、质量控制、决定一致性、研究诚信，以及合理投诉或申诉的处理。保密记录的访问应限于具有正当编辑、法律或研究诚信处理需要的获授权人员。

Confidential reviewer identities, unpublished reports, and internal editorial deliberations are not ordinarily made public. Disclosure may occur only where justified under applicable law, authorized ethical investigation, or formal publication-integrity procedures.

保密审稿人身份、未公开审稿报告及内部编辑讨论通常不向公众披露。只有在适用法律、获授权的伦理调查或正式出版诚信程序具有正当依据时，才可能进行相应披露。

Final Responsibility / 最终责任

The journal's designated responsible editor or editorial office retains responsibility for final editorial decisions. Reviewer reports, editorial advice, guest editorial recommendations, and administrative assessments contribute to the decision-making process but do not transfer that responsibility away from the journal.

本刊指定的负责编辑或编辑部对最终编辑决定承担责任。审稿报告、编辑咨询意见、客座编辑建议及行政性评估均为决定提供依据，但不改变期刊自身承担的最终责任。

A manuscript may be rejected at an appropriate stage if it fails to satisfy the journal's scholarly, ethical, editorial, or technical requirements. Where significant concerns arise after formal acceptance or publication, the journal should address them under the applicable publication ethics, correction, retraction, or other integrity procedures rather than treating all stages as ordinary pre-acceptance review.

对于未达到本刊学术、伦理、编辑或技术要求的稿件，可在适当阶段作出退稿决定。如果正式录用或出版后出现重大问题，应依照适用的出版伦理、更正、撤稿或其他诚信处理程序解决，而不应将所有阶段均视为普通录用前评审。

Related Journal Policies / 相关期刊政策

Authors, reviewers, and editors should consult the journal's Review Process, Article Types, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, AI and Research Integrity Policy, and Complaints and Appeals for the applicable procedures and responsibilities.

作者、审稿人及编辑应根据实际需要参阅本刊 《评审流程》、 《文章类型》、 《出版伦理》、 《利益冲突政策》、 《人工智能与研究诚信政策》 及 《投诉与申诉》， 了解适用的具体程序与责任要求。