Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, fairness, and scholarly relevance of JLPCS. Reviewers provide independent expert assessment to help editors make informed editorial decisions and to help authors improve their manuscripts where revision is possible.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively according to scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity of argument, quality of evidence, and contribution to law, psychology, communication studies, or relevant interdisciplinary fields.

审稿人在维护 JLPCS 的学术质量、研究诚信、评审公正性和学科相关性方面发挥重要作用。审稿意见应帮助编辑作出审慎决定，并在可能修改的情况下帮助作者提升稿件质量。

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should carefully consider whether they can provide a competent, independent, confidential, and timely review.

• Confirm that the manuscript topic falls within your area of expertise.
• Confirm that you can evaluate the relevant theory, method, evidence, legal materials, psychological analysis, communication research, or interdisciplinary framework.
• Confirm that you can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• Check whether any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists.
• Decline the invitation if you are not qualified, not available, or not able to provide an impartial review.
• Do not share the invitation, abstract, manuscript title, or review materials with others without permission from the editorial office.

审稿人在接受邀请前，应确认自己具备相关专业能力、能够按时完成评审、不存在利益冲突，并能够遵守双盲评审和保密要求。

Manuscripts under review are confidential materials. Reviewers must not disclose, copy, distribute, discuss, cite, upload, store in public systems, or use unpublished manuscript content except for the purpose of completing the review.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or review materials with colleagues, students, assistants, or third parties without editorial permission;
• Use unpublished data, arguments, methods, legal analysis, images, tables, datasets, or ideas for personal research or professional advantage;
• Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript;
• Attempt to identify the authors through search engines, preprint servers, conference programs, institutional websites, file metadata, or other means;
• Upload manuscript content to public databases, AI tools, translation platforms, or external software systems that may store or reuse confidential material.

评审中的稿件、补充材料、审稿邀请、审稿意见、编辑沟通和审稿决定相关材料均属于保密信息。审稿人不得擅自传播、利用或公开相关内容。

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect, or may be perceived to affect, impartial assessment. Reviewers should decline the invitation or contact the editorial office for guidance when a conflict may exist.

Potential conflicts include, but are not limited to:

• Recent or ongoing collaboration with the author or research team;
• Personal, family, supervisory, student, mentoring, institutional, or employment relationships;
• Financial, commercial, legal, political, advocacy, or policy interests related to the manuscript;
• Direct academic competition or strong personal bias;
• Prior involvement in the manuscript, dataset, legal case, project, policy report, or research design;
• Access to confidential information that may compromise impartiality.

审稿人如存在实际、潜在或可被合理认为影响公正判断的利益冲突，应主动披露并回避评审，或向编辑部说明情况后等待处理意见。

Reviewer reports should be specific, evidence-based, constructive, and actionable. Reviewers should avoid vague comments such as “the paper is weak” or “the literature is insufficient” without explaining what should be revised.

A useful review report should normally include:

• Summary: Briefly summarize the manuscript’s topic, purpose, method, and main contribution.
• Major strengths: Identify the manuscript’s strongest aspects.
• Major concerns: Explain serious issues affecting contribution, theory, method, evidence, ethics, or interpretation.
• Minor comments: Note issues concerning clarity, organization, terminology, tables, figures, formatting, or references.
• Required revisions: Provide specific recommendations that the author can act on.
• Recommendation: Select an editorial recommendation consistent with the review comments.

审稿报告应具体、客观、可执行。审稿人应说明稿件优点、主要问题、次要问题和修改建议，并使最终建议与正文评审意见保持一致。

Reviewers should alert the editorial office if they identify possible ethical or research integrity concerns. Such concerns should normally be raised in confidential comments to the editor, with a clear explanation and supporting details.

Concerns may include:

• Possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or excessive textual overlap;
• Data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or unsupported results;
• Fabricated, inaccurate, irrelevant, or manipulated references;
• Missing ethics approval or informed consent where required;
• Improper use of personal data, sensitive materials, interviews, surveys, experiments, or institutional records;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest, funding, sponsorship, or advocacy relationships;
• Inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI tools;
• Possible authorship, permissions, copyright, or third-party material issues.

如审稿人发现可能涉及学术不端、伦理违规、数据问题、引用问题、利益冲突、AI 使用不当或作者署名问题，应在给编辑的保密意见中说明。

Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality when using any external tool. Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential review materials, datasets, tables, figures, or identifiable content to generative AI systems, public translation tools, cloud services, or other external platforms unless expressly authorized by the editorial office and permitted by the journal’s confidentiality requirements.

• Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, tone, and fairness of their review reports.
• AI tools must not be used to replace expert academic judgment.
• Reviewers must not use AI tools in ways that compromise confidentiality, data protection, or intellectual property.
• Any substantial use of AI assistance in preparing a review should be disclosed to the editorial office where applicable.

审稿人不得将未发表稿件或保密评审材料上传至可能保存、训练、传播或再利用内容的生成式 AI 系统或外部平台。审稿人应对审稿意见的准确性、公正性和专业性承担责任。

Reviewer comments should be professional, respectful, precise, and constructive. Strong criticism is appropriate when supported by evidence, but personal criticism or hostile language is not acceptable.

审稿意见应针对稿件内容，而不是针对作者个人。应避免歧视性、攻击性、讽刺性或缺乏依据的表述。

Reviewers should complete reviews within the timeframe agreed with the editorial office. If a reviewer cannot complete the review on time, they should notify the editorial office as early as possible.

• Accept review invitations only when you can complete the review in a timely manner.
• Notify the editorial office promptly if unexpected delays occur.
• Decline the invitation early if you are unavailable.
• Do not delay review by waiting until the deadline to decline.

审稿人应在约定时间内完成评审。如无法按时完成，应尽早通知编辑部，以便编辑部及时作出替代安排。

JLPCS does not charge authors any submission fee or peer review fee. The Article Processing Charge applies only after a manuscript has been formally accepted for publication.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts independently. APC payment status, waiver requests, author identity, institutional background, nationality, seniority, or academic status must not influence review comments or recommendations.

JLPCS 不收取投稿费或同行评议费。文章处理费仅在稿件正式录用后收取。审稿意见应独立于任何费用、减免申请、作者身份、机构背景、国籍、资历或学术地位。

Questions about review invitations, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, review deadlines, ethical concerns, or reviewer responsibilities may be directed to the JLPCS Editorial Office.

有关审稿邀请、保密义务、利益冲突、审稿期限、伦理问题或审稿人责任的问题，可联系 JLPCS 编辑部。

Email: [email protected]