同行评议

《空天技术》致力于对来稿进行彻底、高效的评估，并采用严格的双盲同行评审制度。编辑部选择至少两名独立的审稿专家来评审稿件的质量。当评审意见不一致时，编辑部将选择另一位审稿专家进行评审。双盲评审制度防止了对作者的偏见。整个审稿过程可能需要2到3个月。

责任义务

同行评议专家需要根据稿件的科学性、学术性、创新性、可读性、实用性、严谨性、规范性以及有无学术不端、是否存在伦理道德问题等方面对文章提出专业的修改意见，帮助作者提高稿件质量。给编辑提供对稿件的裁决建议，帮助编辑判定稿件。同行评议专家应在规定时间内返回审稿意见。如果同行评议专家认为自己无法胜任此篇稿件的评审工作，或者是无法在约定时间内完成稿件的评审工作，需要立即告知编辑，便于编辑可以联系新的同行评议专家。

客观性

同行评议专家需要客观公正地进行审稿工作，评判稿件的标准是学术质量，不允许对作者进行个人批判。

保密性

本刊实行双盲审稿，同行评议专家收到的任何稿件都必须视为机密文件，不可以向其他人展示或者讨论该篇稿件；不得盗用稿件内容。

利益冲突

同行评议专家不可以其个人的评审专家身份牟取个人不正当的私利。当同行评议专家因竞争、协作等其他因素与作者或其公司机构出现了利益冲突时，同行评议专家应当主动回避该稿件的审稿工作。

 

Peer Review

Aerospace Technology is committed to thorough and efficient evaluation of submitted manuscripts and adopts a rigorous double-blind review procedure. This means that the reviewers are unknown to the authors and that the authors are unknown to the reviewers. The editorial office selects at least two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript. When the evaluation opinions are inconsistent, the editorial department will select another reviewer to evaluate. The double-blind review process prevents bias or perception of bias towards the authors. The entire review process may take 2 to 3 months.

Responsibility and obligation

Peer review experts need to put forward professional suggestions regarding the revision of articles according to the scientific, academic, innovative, readable, practical, rigorous, normative aspects of papers, as well as whether there is academic misconduct, whether there are ethical problems, etc., to help the authors improve the quality of contributions, to provide the editors with suggestions regarding the verdict of the manuscript and to help the editors to judge the manuscript. Peer review experts shall provide review comments in a timely manner. If peer review experts believe that they are not competent for reviewing the paper, or if they are unable to complete the review within the agreed-upon time, they need to inform the editors immediately so that the editors can contact new peer review experts.

Objectivity

Peer review experts need to review papers objectively and impartially. The standard for judging papers is academic quality, and personal criticism of authors is not allowed.

Confidentiality

The journal adopts a double-blind review process. Any papers received by peer review experts must be regarded as confidential documents, and showing or discussing the papers with others is not allowed; the misappropriation of the contents of papers is also not allowed.

Conflict of interest

Peer review experts shall not seek personal improper private interests through their personal status as review experts. When there is a conflict of interest between peer review experts and the author or his or her unit due to competition, cooperation or other factors, the peer review experts should actively avoid reviewing the manuscript.