同行评审与编辑政策
1、评审制度：编辑部严格遵循三审三校制度，所有稿件均由责任编辑与其他编辑互校，执行主编审读，外聘专家学者审读，作者自行校对等多道以上流程，避免差错。
第一步：编辑部初审
编辑部收到稿件后，首先进行初审，内容包括：
（1）审定稿件是否属于本刊收稿要求，稿件重复率是否在期刊要求范围内；
（2）审定稿件组成的各要素是否齐全，图表是否符合要求，格式是否规范；
（3）稿件的学术性、科学性如何，确定是否送外审。
编辑部审查结果：
A）送外审初审后认为有发表价值的稿件，分别送两位同行专家，平行审阅。
B）返回补充或修改
若稿件内容描述不够完整，文章重复率或语言不过关，告知作者稿件需要补充或修改的地方，修改完毕后稿件返回编辑部，重新进入初审环节。
C）退稿
编辑认为论文不符合期刊范畴或投稿要求，不送外审，直接退回稿件。
第二步：同行评议
同行评审的主要目的是提升投稿论文的学术水平。
（1）同行评议形式：两位同行专家，平行、双盲评审。
（2）审稿人选择
本期刊审稿人均为该领域知名专家和学者，经期刊编委推荐、邀请，成为审稿人。作者也可自荐为审稿人，由编委会审核通过。
（3）论文评审标准
审稿专家主要围绕以下评审标准，给予稿件专业性评判：
①论文内容是否具有创新性；
②论文选题的科学意义和工程意义，文章的原创性、前瞻性、实用性如何；
③论文有无重大缺陷，理论推导、概念、数据、图表的准确性和可靠性如何，是否支持论文研究内容和结论；
④论文的整体性和可读性如何，表述是否合理、准确，结构是否完整，逻辑是否清晰；是否对研究问题给出了清晰的论述，文章结论的正确性、有效性如何。
（4）同行评议结果
每篇论文至少请两位同行评议专家依据评审标准给出专业性意见，责任编辑综合两位评审专家意见，做出以下决定：
A） 提交执行主编复审；
B）退修：
第一类：论文需要小修，小修后提交复审；
第二类：论文需要大修，作者返还修改稿时需逐条回复审稿意见，责任编辑根据修改后论文及修稿意见回复，确定是否进入复审环节，或退回至外审环节重新评审。
C）退稿：若两位同行评审都给出退稿处理，则进行退稿处理，并附上评审意见。
第三步：复审
执行主编在编辑部初审和同行评审基础上进行复审，结合作者修回的稿件给出复审意见，做出以下决定：
① 提交主编或副主编终审；
② 退修：
③ 退稿：结合同行评审的结果给出退稿处理，则进行退稿处理，并附上评审意见。
第四步：终审
主编或副主编在编辑部初审、同行评审以及复审意见的基础上作终审处理，确定是否录用，并建议刊发时间。
2、审稿人：目前《地基处理》审稿人共有219人，主要来自浙江、江苏、北京、广东、上海、湖北、河北、陕西、广西、山东、天津、辽宁、福建、河南、四川、安徽、重庆、云南、江西、山西、甘肃、湖南等省、市、自治区。审稿人单位主要有清华大学、浙江大学、同济大学、东南大学、武汉大学、重庆大学、河海大学、福州大学等国内73所高等院校；还包括中国建筑科学研究院、南京水利科学研究院、浙江省建筑设计研究院、华东建筑设计研究院等17家科研设计单位。《地基处理》不仅有国内的审稿人，还有一些来自海外的审稿专家。
3、编辑修改：依照《著作权法》有关规定，本刊可对来稿进行文字修改、删节，凡涉及原意的修改，则提请作者考虑。
4、修改时限：稿件审查结果一般在1～2月之内通知作者，有个别稿件可能送审时间较长，如果超过2个月后仍未接到审稿结果，作者可与编辑部取得联系后自投它处。
5、编委和编辑投稿：编委、编辑投稿必须同样遵守期刊的所有评审和编辑程序。编委、编辑不得参与本人及其家属、同事撰写论文的评审工作、编辑工作及录用决定。同行评审必须独立于相关作者、编辑及其研究小组进行。
Peer Review and Editorial Policy
1. Review System: The editorial department strictly implements a “three-review and three-proofreading” process. All manuscripts undergo cross-checking by the responsible editor and other editors, review by the executive editor, external review by invited experts and scholars, and author proofreading to minimize potential errors.
Step 1: Editorial Office Preliminary Review
After receiving the manuscript, the editorial department conducts a preliminary review, including:
(1) Determining whether the manuscript meets the journal's submission requirements and whether the similarity score is within the acceptable range;
(2) Verifying if all necessary components of the manuscript are complete, if the figures and tables meet the requirements, and if the format is standardized;
(3) Assessing the academic and scientific values of the manuscript and deciding whether to send it for external review.
Editorial Review Outcomes:
A) Send for External Review
If the preliminary review deems the manuscript valuable for publication, it will be sent to two peer experts for parallel review.
B) Return for Supplement or Revision
If the manuscript's content is incomplete, or if the similarity score or language does not meet standards, the authors will be informed of the necessary revisions. Once the revisions are made, the manuscript will re-enter the preliminary review process.
C) Rejection
If the manuscript does not meet the journal's scope or submission requirements, it will be returned without external review.
Step 2: Peer Review
The main purpose of peer review is to enhance the academic quality of submitted papers.
(1) Peer Review Method: The review process involves two peer experts conducting a parallel, double-blind review.
(2) Reviewer Selection: The journal's reviewers are well-known experts and scholars in the field, recommended and invited by the journal's editorial board. Authors can also self-nominate as reviewers, subject to approval by the editorial board.
(3) Manuscript Review Criteria:
Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
① Does the content of the paper show innovation?
② What is the scientific and engineering significance of the topic? How is the originality, foresight, and practicality of the paper?
③ Are there any major flaws? How accurate and reliable are the theoretical deductions, concepts, data, and figures? Do they support the research content and conclusions?
④ How is the manuscript’s overall coherence and readability? Is the presentation logical and clear? Does the paper provide a thorough discussion of the research question, and how correct and effective are the conclusions?
(4) Peer Review Outcomes:
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two peer reviewers based on the review criteria, and the responsible editor synthesizes the opinions to make the following decisions:
A) Submit to Executive Editor for Re-review
B) Request for Revision:
Minor Revision: After minor revisions, the manuscript is submitted for re-review.
Major Revision: The authors must respond to each review comment when submitting the revised manuscript. The responsible editor will determine whether it should go through re-review or be sent back to external reviewers for further evaluation.
C) Rejection: If both peer reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript will be rejected, accompanied by the reviewers' comments.
Step 3: Re-review
The executive editor conducts the re-review based on the preliminary review and peer review, along with the author's revised manuscript, and makes the following decisions:
① Submit for Final Review by Chief Editor or Deputy Chief Editor
② Request for Revision
③ Rejection: If the combined peer review results suggest rejection, the manuscript will be rejected, with the review comments attached.
Step 4: Final Review
The chief editor or deputy chief editor makes the final decision based on the editorial review, peer review, and re-review outcomes, determining whether to accept the manuscript and suggesting the publication timeline.
2. Reviewers: Journal of Ground Improvement has a pool of 219 reviewers, primarily from provinces and municipalities such as Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai, Hubei, Hebei, Shaanxi, Guangxi, Shandong, Tianjin, Liaoning, Fujian, Henan, Sichuan, Anhui, Chongqing, Yunnan, Jiangxi, Shanxi, Gansu, and Hunan. Reviewers are affiliated with 73 universities, including Tsinghua University, Zhejiang University, Tongji University, Southeast University, Wuhan University, Chongqing University, Hohai University, and Fuzhou University, as well as 17 research and design institutes such as the China Academy of Building Research, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Architectural Design and Research, and East China Architectural Design & Research Institute. The journal also includes overseas reviewers.
3. Editorial Modifications: In accordance with the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the journal reserves the right to make textual modifications and deletions to the submitted manuscripts. Any changes that may alter the original meaning will be submitted to the authors for consideration.
4. Revision Deadline: Manuscripts are generally reviewed within 1 to 2 months. In some cases, the review process may take longer. If no review result is received after 2 months, the author may contact the editorial department to inquire or submit the manuscript elsewhere.
5. Editorial Board and Editor Submissions: Editorial board members and editors must follow the same review and editorial procedures as other contributors. They are prohibited from participating in the review, editing, or acceptance decisions of papers written by themselves, their family members, or colleagues. Peer review must be conducted independently of the authors, editors, and their research groups.
