快猫短视频

Skip to main content

Your web browser is out of date. Please update it for greater security, speed and the best experience on this site.

Peer review at 快猫短视频

At 快猫短视频 we believe that peer review is the backbone of robust and trustworthy
research. Delivering a reliable and constructive peer review process sits at the heart of our
service. We always look for ways to improve the publishing experience for authors and
reviewers and have been recognised for our efforts by winning the ALPSP Impact Award.

We offer different models of peer review on our journals:

Double anonymous

We’ve introduced double-anonymous peer review for all of our owned journals, making us the first physics publisher to adopt the approach portfolio-wide.

Double-anonymous peer review 鈥 where the reviewer and author identities are concealed 鈥 has the potential to reduce bias with respect to gender, race, country of origin or affiliation which should lead to a more equitable system.

Transparent peer review

We have moved all our open-access journals to transparent peer review, making us the first physics publisher to adopt the approach portfolio-wide.

Transparent peer review shows the complete peer review process from initial review to final decision when both authors and reviewers opt-in. This means that alongside the published article, readers can see a full peer review history, including reviewer reports, editorial decision letters and the authors鈥 responses.

Find out more about transparent peer review

Single anonymous

Reviewers are anonymous to authors, but author identities are visible to reviewers. We prefer authors to submit their work double-anonymous as it helps to eliminate bias.

Co-review

Creating an inclusive and collaborative environment for all reviewers. Available across all of our owned journals, and a number of partner journals, co-reviews enable early career researchers to receive guidance and recognition, as well as provide experienced reviewers with the opportunity to assist aspiring researchers.

Why peer review is the best defence against research misconduct