To standardize the academic review process and ensure the academic quality of the journal, Chinese Health Quality Management strictly adheres to the "three-level review and three-level proofreading" system and adopts a "double-blind peer review" system to guarantee the fairness and objectivity of the manuscript evaluation process. The specific guidelines are as follows.

1.Review Rules
1.1. Double-Blind Peer Review
A system of mutual anonymity between authors and reviewers is implemented to ensure the objectivity and fairness of the review process.

1.2. Principle of Expert Matching
Based on the research field of the manuscript, reviewers with associate professor titles or higher and whose research directions align with the manuscript are selected from the journal£§s expert pool to ensure the professionalism of the review.

1.3. Withdrawal System
Experts who have cooperative relationships, teacher-student relationships, or conflicts of interest with the authors are not allowed to participate in the review of relevant manuscripts.

2. Selection of Review Experts
2.1. Expert Pool Construction
An expert pool covering the column areas of this journal is established, and expert information and academic qualifications are regularly updated.

2.2. Dynamic Evaluation Mechanism
Review experts are dynamically evaluated based on indicators such as review timeliness, review quality, and author satisfaction, with a process of selecting the best and eliminating the less competent.

3. Review Process
3.1. Timeline
In principle, the review should be completed within two weeks, with an extension of one week possible under special circumstances.

3.2. Review Key Points
(1) Innovativeness: Whether the research fills gaps in the field or substantially advances existing theories/practices.
(2) Scientificity: Whether the research design is rigorous and whether the data collection and analysis methods are appropriate.
(3) Ethical Compliance: Whether it has been approved by an ethics review committee and whether the rights and interests of subjects are fully protected.
(4) Writing Quality: Whether the logic is clear, the language is concise and smooth, the data presentation is standardized, and the conclusions are evidence-based.
(5) Abstract and References: Whether the English abstract is accurate and whether the references are complete and correctly formatted.

3.3. Review Opinions
Include quantitative scores (innovation score, theoretical significance score, application value score, and international/domestic level score, each ranging from 1 to 10) and qualitative comments.
Clear recommendations: publish as soon as possible, publish directly, publish after revision, review again after revision, or not suitable for publication in this journal.

4. Review Results and Feedback
4.1. Review Results
The responsible editor fully discusses the manuscript based on the expert review opinions, and the journal£§s person-in-charge makes the final decision on the review opinions.

4.2. Feedback Mechanism
Review opinions must be fed back to the authors, who are required to submit a revised manuscript within the specified time frame, along with a revision note responding to the review opinions point by point. Failure to submit within the deadline is regarded as an automatic withdrawal of the manuscript.
If the authors have objections to the review conclusions, they may submit a written appeal within 15 days after receiving the decision letter, accompanied by detailed rebuttal reasons and evidence. The appeal case is reviewed by the editorial board organized by the journal£§s person-in-charge, and a review decision is issued within 30 days.