尊敬的审稿人，请您仔细审理稿件，并就文章选题，研究方法、研究成果的可信度，文字表述、图表处理、摘要内容、参考文献的完整性以及是否存在学术道德问题等方面进行评议，并尽可能提供具体的审稿意见。同时，对稿件的最终处理意见请给出明确的建议：录用、修改后再审、修改后录用、退稿等。
本刊对审稿的基本要求：
(1) 审稿人应鼓励学术争鸣，不因为与自己学术观点不同而刻意为难。
(2) 审稿人不应因宗教、政治观点、性别、地域等因素而影响对稿件学术水平的评价。
具体请以下面的审稿要求说明为准：
《眼科学报》致力于为作者及广大的科研群体提供服务，尽可能让更多的研究成果得以发表，前提是这些研究符合本刊的高标准学术要求和伦理规范，并通过同行评审。
1. 同行评审模式
《眼科学报》采用双盲同行评审，即：审稿人的姓名不会透露给作者；作者的姓名不会透露给审稿人。
2. 审稿人职责
如果我们需要您对某篇稿件进行评审，我们将通过电子邮件通知您，请您通过本刊的投稿系统选择接受或拒绝审稿的邀请。我们希望审稿人能帮助确保《眼科学报》所发表的研究均经过恰当的操作，具有科学可信度和伦理合规性，并且研究的报告遵循相关的指南（例如病例报告的CARE指南）。
本刊主编将基于审稿人的意见，做出接受/拒绝稿件的最终决定。
我们欢迎审稿人的反馈。如果您对您评审过的稿件或我们的决定有任何意见，或对我们的评审流程有任何建议，欢迎随时与我们联系。
3. 成为审稿人
如果您有意成为本刊的审稿人，请发送邮件至编辑部（ykxb@gzzoc.com），并附上您的简历及评审领域的兴趣方向。
4. 同行评审指导
在撰写审稿意见时，请如实声明您与稿件之间可能存在的利益冲突，包括个人、职业或财务方面的冲突因素。
在撰写审稿意见之前，推荐您浏览本刊给作者的投稿指南。审稿应当公平客观，批评应基于客观事实，而非仅仅因为意见分歧而批评，批评的目的应在于帮助作者改进论文。本刊要求作者在撰写稿件时遵循一定的研究报告指南，并提交每项指南的完成自检表。我们建议您在审稿时使用作者提交的自检表，以辅助审稿。首先，请您审查自检表中所要求的最基本信息是否呈现在了稿件中，然后使用相关的报告指南来协助您评估稿件。如果您发现自检表的填写有误，或稿件并未包含自检表中要求的信息，您可以在审稿意见中指出需要补充的内容。报告指南并不能直接用于评判研究方法的质量，但它指明了一些在设计研究时应该考虑的问题。
所有未出版的稿件均为保密文件。除同行审稿人和编辑部人员外，不得向任何人透露稿件的存在。审稿人必须对其评审的稿件严格保密，未经本刊编辑同意，不得向第三方透露任何与稿件或其内容有关的信息。如果您在审稿过程中选择与同事讨论稿件，请提醒他们稿件的保密性，并在您的审稿意见中对他们的贡献表示感谢。同时，请鼓励您的同事注册成为我们的审稿人。
如果您认为某篇稿件在出版伦理方面存在严重问题（例如，您认为可能存在抄袭行为），可以私下联系编辑部。
我们对所有支持本刊的审稿人表示由衷的感谢！
To reviewers:
Please evaluate the manuscript carefully, paying close attention to the following aspects: relevance of the topic, reliability of the research methods and results, clarity of the writing, quality of the figures and tables, content of the abstracts, completeness of the references, and the presence of any ethical concerns. We ask you to be as specific and detailed as possible in your feedback. In addition, please provide a clear recommendation for the final decision on the manuscript: acceptance, re-review after revision, acceptance after revision, or rejection.
The basic requirements for review are as follows:
(1) Reviewers should encourage academic debate and not reject a manuscript solely because its viewpoints differ from their own.
(2) Reviewers should not allow factors such as religion, political views, gender, or geographic location to affect their judgment of the manuscript's academic merit.
For further guidance, please refer to the detailed review requirements outlined below:
Eye Science aims to provide a service to authors and the wider research community by making as much research available as possible, provided it meets our journal's high standards for research conduct and ethical procedures and receives approval after peer review.
1. Peer review mode
Eye Science uses double-blind peer review, which means:
the reviewer's name is NOT disclosed to the author
the author's name is NOT disclosed to the reviewer
2. The role of reviewers
If we need your help with appraising a manuscript, we will send you an email and ask you to accept or decline the invitation through our submission system. We ask for reviewers' assistance in ensuring that any studies published in Eye Science have been conducted properly, are scientifically credible and ethical, and have been reported in accordance with the appropriate guidelines (e.g., the CARE guidelines for case reports).
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript, based on the reviewers' comments.
We welcome feedback from our reviewers. If you have any comments you wish to make relating to a manuscript you have reviewed or our decision on it, or relating to our review process in general, we would be pleased to hear from you.
3. To become a reviewer
If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, please send an email to the Editorial Office (ykxb@gzzoc.com) with a copy of your CV attached and an indication of your review interests.
4. Guidance for peer reviewers
When you provide a review, please declare any competing interests you may have in relation to the article. These could be of a personal, professional, or financial nature.
Before writing your review, you may find it helpful to browse our guidelines for authors. Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Criticism should be objective, not merely based on differences of opinion, and should aim to help the author improve their paper. Our journal requires authors to use reporting guidelines when writing a manuscript and to submit a completed checklist for each guideline. We encourage you to use this completed checklist included in the review task to aid in your review. Please first check whether the minimum information indicated in the checklist is included in the report and use the reporting guideline to aid in your assessment of the manuscript. If you find the checklist has been filled in incorrectly or that the manuscript does not actually include the information required by the checklist, as part of review comments, you could as well indicate what additional information must be reported. A reporting guideline may not be used to directly judge the quality of the methodology used in the study, but does suggest the kinds of questions that should be considered when designing a study.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. The existence of a manuscript under review should not be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal's editors. If we invite you to review an article and you choose to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please remind them of the confidential nature of the paper and acknowledge their input in your review. Please also encourage your colleagues to register as reviewers.
If you have any serious concerns relating to the publication ethics of a manuscript (e.g., if you believe you have encountered a case of plagiarism), you can contact the Editorial Office in confidence.
We are very grateful to all of the reviewers who have supported our journal so far.
