In order to ensure the innovative, rigorous and verified academic quality of the manuscripts published in Medical Education Management, the editorial board of Medical Education Management has formed a set of its own review system based on its experience in reviewing manuscripts according to the characteristics of the academic papers and the editorial workflow and responsibility system of the journal, as follows:
1. Manuscripts are subject to the "three review" system. That is, the first review, re-review (review or second review), final review (third review). That is, after the editorial department receives the manuscript, the assistant editor is responsible for registration, and then the responsible editor conducts the preliminary examination; the manuscript passed by the preliminary examination is reviewed by the director of the editorial department and sent to the external examination, generally at the same time sent to the two peer experts to review and evaluate (single-blind review), the peer experts review and pass the manuscript with statistical content, it should be sent to the statistical experts to review and evaluate again; after the external examination of the manuscript enters into the third examination, that is, after the review of relevant experts, the responsible editor, based on the review comments, selects the final review (third review). The editor-in-charge shall select the manuscripts according to the review opinions and then submit them to the editor-in-chief or the editorial director (executive deputy editor-in-chief) for finalization.
2. The editorial department shall strictly examine the quality of the manuscripts, strictly control the manuscripts, and keep the name of the reviewer, the working unit and the review comments that should not be made public strictly confidential. Reviewers have different opinions on the manuscript, should be dealt with in different situations, the academic views of different opinions, generally should not affect the publication of the manuscript. Especially for manuscripts with unique insights, as long as the thesis is clear, the data is reliable and the reasoning is correct, it should be published.
3. If the authors have different opinions on certain review comments and provide justifiable reasons, the authors' opinions should be respected and handled appropriately.
4. The editorial office shall be responsible for the return of any manuscript that does not conform to the nature and requirements of the journal or any manuscript that is not up to the level of publication after review.
5. The journal has opened the online "Academic Misconduct Literature Detection System for Scientific and Technical Journals", generally in the receipt and finalization of manuscripts for two times to check the manuscripts, where found to have academic misconduct articles are strictly withdrawn.