Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and plays a crucial role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal. Reviewers contribute their expertise to evaluate the originality, rigor, and scholarly relevance of submitted manuscripts.

同行评审是学术出版的基础组成部分，在维持本刊学术质量与诚信方面发挥着至关重要的作用。审稿人贡献其专业知识，以评估提交稿件的原创性、严密性与学术相关性。

Silence greatly values the time and intellectual effort provided by reviewers. These guidelines are intended to support reviewers in conducting fair, constructive, and ethically responsible evaluations.

《Silence》高度重视审稿人付出的时间与智识努力。本指南旨在协助审稿人进行公平、具建设性且符合伦理责任的评估。

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively and provide clear, constructive feedback that assists editors in making publication decisions and helps authors improve their work. Reviewers should:

期望审稿人客观地评估稿件，并提供清晰、具建设性的反馈，以协助编辑做出出版决定，并帮助作者完善其工作。审稿人应当：

The review process should aim to support scholarly dialogue and the development of high-quality research.

评审过程应旨在支持学术对话与高质量研究的发展。

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

所有收到的评审稿件必须作为机密文件对待。审稿人不得：

The obligation to maintain confidentiality continues even after the review process has been completed.

即使在评审过程结束后，保密义务依然延续。

Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript if they have any conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Potential conflicts of interest may include:

若存在任何可能影响其公正性的利益冲突，审稿人应拒绝评审该稿件。潜在的利益冲突可能包括：

If a conflict of interest is identified, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly.

若发现利益冲突，审稿人应立即通知编辑部。

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on several key criteria:

审稿人须基于以下几个关键标准评估稿件：

Relevance to the Journal 与期刊的契合度

The manuscript should align with the journal’s aims and scope and contribute to scholarly discussions relevant to the journal’s thematic focus.

稿件应与本刊的宗旨和范围相契合，并对与期刊主题焦点相关的学术讨论做出贡献。

Originality 原创性

The research should present new insights, perspectives, or analyses that advance understanding within the field.

研究应提出能增进该领域内理解的新见解、新视角或新分析。

Methodological Rigor 方法论的严密性

The research methods or analytical approaches should be appropriate, clearly described, and logically applied.

研究方法或分析路径应恰当、描述清晰且应用符合逻辑。

Clarity and Structure 清晰度与结构

The manuscript should be clearly written and well organized, with coherent arguments and logical structure.

稿件应行文清晰、组织良好，具有连贯的论点与符合逻辑的结构。

Engagement with Literature 文献对话

The manuscript should demonstrate appropriate engagement with relevant academic literature.

稿件应展现出与相关学术文献的恰当对话。

Scholarly Contribution 学术贡献

The research should contribute meaningfully to academic knowledge, methodological understanding, or scholarly dialogue.

研究应对学术知识、方法论理解或学术对话做出有意义的贡献。

Reviewers are encouraged to provide comments that are constructive and helpful to authors. Comments should aim to:

鼓励审稿人提供具建设性且对作者有帮助的意见。意见应旨在：

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and maintain a respectful tone in all feedback.

审稿人应避免人身批评，并在所有反馈中保持尊重的语调。

At the end of the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

在评审结束时，审稿人可提出以下编辑决定建议之一：

The final publication decision is made by the editor based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation.

最终的出版决定由编辑基于审稿人报告与编辑评估做出。

Reviewers are typically asked to complete their evaluations within 2–4 weeks of accepting the review invitation.

通常要求审稿人在接受评审邀请后的 2–4 周内完成评估。

If reviewers are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe, they should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

若审稿人无法在要求的时间范围内完成评审，应尽快通知编辑部。

Reviewers are expected to follow the ethical standards outlined in the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy. Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify:

期望审稿人遵循本刊“出版伦理政策”中概述的伦理标准。若发现以下情况，审稿人应通知编辑：

Maintaining ethical standards is essential for ensuring the credibility of scholarly communication.

维持伦理标准对于确保学术交流的可信度至关重要。

By participating in the peer review process, reviewers contribute to the advancement of academic knowledge and support the development of rigorous and responsible research practices.

通过参与同行评审过程，审稿人为推进学术知识做出了贡献，并支持了严谨且负责任的研究实践的发展。

Silence appreciates the valuable contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their essential role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal.

《Silence》对审稿人的宝贵贡献表示感谢，并认可他们在维持期刊质量与诚信方面所发挥的核心作用。