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.).

Editing is the central link of the publication of sci-tech journals, which involves specific matters such as reviewing manuscripts, editing processing and contacting with authors. Because there are a large number of subjective factors, it is of great significance for editors to maintain high level of professional ability and ethics. In order to improve editing skills, regulate and restrain editing professional behavior, Blasting not only strictly implements the “editing professional code”, but also formulates the editor ethics for this journal.

In addition to full-time editors, the main body of the code of ethics also covers a series of related personnel involved in the editing work of Blasting, such as manuscript reviewing, abstract translation, part-time proofreading, editing affairs, etc., who are collectively referred to as "editor" in this code.

1. The editor shall deal with all incoming manuscripts in a fair, just and timely manner without delay outside the established process. The editor shall make appropriate decisions based on the quality, originality of the paper and its relevance to the journal, without any connection with the author's age, affiliation, education background or title.

2. Editors should abide by the principle of confidentiality. On the one hand, the reviewer's information should be strictly kept. On the other hand, the author's research should be kept secret. No article shall be released to anyone other than the editorial board or reviewers. If a manuscript is rejected, the contents of the manuscript must not be released after the rejection. During the peer review process, editors should also inform reviewers that it is strictly forbidden to publish the review or use it for their own research.

3. Respect peer review, joint review comments and final review results. Editors should not be motivated by interest to interfere with peer review and should not arbitrarily ignore positive or negative review opinions and make contrary decisions. If it is necessary to attach a review opinion to the author, the editor should not change or delete the opinion as long as there are no inappropriate defamatory or offensive remarks.

4. When selecting experts for paper review, editors should make reasonable evaluation on the qualifications of reviewers and the quality of manuscripts, so as to prevent the publication of results from being suppressed by the peer review process. Editors shall not choose an expert from the same institute to the author as the reviewer, nor any person appears in the authors of the paper or in the acknowledgement.

5. Editors can adjust the acceptance criteria according to the current situation and future trend of the journal, but there should be no difference in the treatment of articles in a short period, especially in the same period.

6. Editors should appropriately help authors and reviewers to communicate with each other. On the one hand, they should evaluate the importance and necessity of communication, which should not be simple, direct and unfiltered, but to carry out necessary information exchange so as not to affect the normal review. On the other hand, it is not allowed to change the author or reviewer's will by deleting or changing to convey wrong information to the other party, so as to avoid misunderstanding and disputes between the two parties.

7. Editors should scientifically analyze the publishing speed and volume, reasonably control the amount of article reserve, receive enough manuscripts to meet the needs of timely publication, and reduce the waiting time of manuscripts in the reserve process. 8. The editor and the author should avoid dealing with the manuscript when there is a conflict of interest (such as kinship, teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, and competitive relationship).

9. For manuscripts accepted through the formal procedures of preliminary review, peer review and joint review, the editor must arrange publication unless major errors, plagiarism, academic misconduct and other unethical phenomena are found; Editors should consider publishing controversial results of rigorous scientific research to fully demonstrate that "a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend".

10. The editor should take the author's appeal seriously. The appeal must be reviewed by another expert, who will make a decision after a joint review.

11. Editors should attach importance to the review of manuscripts, avoid academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and repeated publications of one manuscript. They should blacklist those who commit academic misconduct and notify relevant departments when necessary.

12. After strict review and redaction procedures, if there are still mistakes, the editor should admit his own mistakes and timely release the "notice of correction".

13. Editors should respect the author's point of view and style of writing, and should not add, delete or change any element of the manuscript without authorization. They should not change the academic connotation of the text through editing. The editor shall, as far as possible, provide the author with detailed suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection.

14. Editors are responsible for verifying and reviewing the papers and authors that have been complained by readers or found to have potential academic misconduct. The editor should not connive at revocation without appropriate reason, but should check the content and author in detail and report the verification to the editor-in-chief to assist him in making a decision.

Blasting is committed to publishing high-quality papers with complete contents, implementing a strict peer review system, and using CNKI academic misconduct document detection system to check all published articles twice after submission and before publication. Strict standards of academic ethics are of great significance to purify the academic environment and promote the sound and healthy development of Blasting. The code of ethics implemented by Blasting includes but is not limited to the following:

1. The signature criteria

(1) Those who make important contributions to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of research concepts, ideas, topics, designs and data.

(2) The person who wrote the paper or modified its key contents.

(3) The person who conduct a comprehensive review and clearance, and make the final version of the final.

(4) The person who agrees to be responsible for the honesty problems in all aspects of the research work in addition to his or her own research contribution.

It is not appropriate to list the authors if all 4 criteria are not met. However, if I agreed, his or her name can be included in the acknowledgement.

2. Signature order and change

In principle, the author's signature shall be sorted according to the above principles according to the degree of contribution, which shall be jointly agreed by the author of the paper and determined before submission. After submission and publication, the author's signature shall not be changed. If it is really necessary to change, the main author in charge of the paper (the first author and corresponding author) shall submit a written application for change to the editorial office of Blasting, state the reasons, and be signed by all the signed (including the changed signed) authors for confirmation. The change can only be made after discussion and approval by the editorial office of Blasting. A change in the author's signature after a paper is published is usually published as a "correction". The author shall not change the author's signature in the revised manuscript without authorization.

Normally, only one corresponding author is identified in the paper. If the results of the paper come from multi-unit cooperative research, and if it is really necessary to increase the corresponding authors or equivalent contributors, the increase may be appropriate, generally not more than two. The work of a large team with multiple authors can be attributed to the team name, or the name of each author can be added.

3. The author's institution label

(1) Signature unit. A signature unit is the name of the administrative institution to which the author belongs or the institution that has completed the research. If the author's administrative institution is inconsistent with the institution that has completed the topic selection, research program design, research conditions and research work, the author shall take the institution that has provided the research conditions and completed the research work as the signature unit. If the author's organization is not relevant to the research content of the paper, the author shall state his/her contribution to the research or the author's organization shall issue a statement certifying that the author has actually engaged in the research.

(2) Multi-agency signature. If the authors belong to different institutions, in principle, only the name of the institution that has completed the research work or the institution that can provide the authorization letter for the publication of the paper can be listed as the signature unit. The names of other institutions can be added with footnotes or marked in a uniform position in the article.

(3) Name and order of cooperative units. For papers produced through collaborative research by multiple institutions, the author ranking is first determined by negotiation among the institutions, and then the unit signature ranking is determined according to the author ranking of the paper.

(4) Change of author unit. If the name of the affiliated institution of the author changes, the signature of the author unit shall be signed according to the name of the new affiliated institution and the name of the original unit shall be marked at the same time.

4. Plagiarism, forgery and tampering

Plagiarizing the work or scientific research of others, including ideas, concepts, results, conclusions, methods, texts, pictures, forms, images, etc., as a result of their work or achievement without indicating the source, or without properly stating the source.

(1) Self-plagiarism. The author copies the published results of himself or his team, but does not specify the source and publishes it again as a new result.

(2) Text plagiarism. The author copies the text or paragraph of an article that others have published, but does not specify the source and republishes it as part of his own article.

(3) Data, charts, formula plagiarism. The author copy the data, charts, formulas of the articles that others have published, but does not indicate the source or lack of copyright license, and republish them as part of his own article.

(4) Thought plagiarism. Publish other people's ideas as their own, in various forms, without attribution.

If a lot of words are quoted directly, although the source is indicated, but without quotation marks, it is also the category of plagiarism and must be rewritten.

Forgery refers to the recording or reporting of falsified data, information or results.

Tampering refers to fraud in the course of scientific research materials, equipment or experiments, or alteration or omission of information or results, so that scientific records do not accurately reflect research work. It should be noted that the picture should not be over-modified, otherwise it is also a tampering with data.

Blasting has the right to withdraw manuscripts for plagiarism, forgery and tampering, and the right to make real-name notices and criticism in the journal of Blasting, and the right to notify the relevant units for serious administrative punishment of the main author.

5. Correction

A statement of the journal to correct parts of a formally published paper (paper version, electronic version and network version) shall be published in the following cases:

There are errors in some parts of the paper, especially non-subjective or non-intentional errors.

The author's signature is incorrect and needs to be changed.

6. Withdrawal of manuscripts

Withdrawal of manuscripts is a regular error-correcting procedure and one of the work behaviors of a journal that cancels the right of publication of an officially published paper (paper version, electronic version and network version). It is published in the following cases:

(1) The paper exists a third-party writing, submission, and modification of the content of the paper.

(2) The paper has data forgery and tampering, which makes the results reported in the paper not credible.

(3) There are academic plagiarism problems in the paper. According to the classification of different ways there are text plagiarism, icon plagiarism, idea plagiarism, paragraph plagiarism, and full text plagiarism.

(4) There are problems of repeated publication and multiple submissions with one manuscript.

(5) The author provides false peer reviewer information, or the author falsifies expert recommendations.

(6) In the process of experimental design, implementation and analysis, the results reported in this paper are not credible due to the author's non-subjective error.

(7) There are violations of relevant laws and regulations.