The following types of contribution to Chinese Journal of Energetic Material are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.Chinese Journal of Energetic Material offers double-blind peer review.

The peer-review process is an essential part of the publication process, which improves the manuscripts our journals publish. The following questions we ask reviewers, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

• Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
• Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
• Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references. On a more subjective note, do you feel that the results presented are of immediate interest to many people in your own discipline, and/or to people from several disciplines?
• Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
• Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
• Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
• Suggested improvements: Please list additional experiments or data that could help strengthening the work in a revision.
• References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded?
• Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
• Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?
• CJEM is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion; please raise any concerns that may in your view have an impact on this commitment.
• Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
• Please address any other specific question asked by the editor via email.

Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the referees’ thought process. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the referees feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific refereeing standards, reviewer can contact the editor for guidance.