To ensure the academic quality of the journal, all submissions to Clean Coal Technology undergo three stages of review: initial screening by the responsible editor, peer review by experts in the field, and final approval by the chief editor before publication.

　　1) Initial review by the responsible editor. The initial review of the manuscript is the first screening after the author's submission, to preliminarily determine whether it aligns with the journal's publishing objectives and scope; whether its overall structure adheres to the writing format for scientific papers; whether its content demonstrates innovation and advancement in the field of study, as well as high academic value. After passing this initial review, appropriate peer reviewers are selected promptly for further evaluation. In this stage, our journal assigns a responsible editor to conduct the preliminary review, and manuscripts of poor quality or not aligned with our publishing objectives will be rejected.

　　2) Peer expert evaluation. Peer review is a crucial step in our three-stage process. Our journal adopts a double-blind reviewing system involving both young and senior experts along with editorial/reviewing specialists. These experts provide professional evaluations on various aspects such as novelty and relevance of the research topic chosen by authors, originality of their studies, correctness and level of academic theories involved, as well as value for peers' reference. The evaluation results serve as important criteria for selecting papers to be published in our journal. To ensure fair and objective assessment by peer reviewers, we employ double anonymous reviewing where responsibility editors submit papers without disclosing any information about authors to reviewers who also remain unaware of authors' identities or affiliations. This anonymity minimizes biases related to gender or institutional reputation so that reviewers can evaluate manuscripts solely based on academic merits without being influenced by non-academic factors.

　　3）In this process, the editorial department has also established an appeal mechanism, clarifying the channels, paths, and procedures for appeals and specifying the time limit for feedback on appeal opinions. This enhances effective communication between authors and reviewers regarding their attitudes towards manuscripts. The editorial department will arbitrate based on the appeal situation by convening all reviewers for discussion in order to resolve disputes. If necessary, a re-review process may be arranged to enhance fairness and impartiality in peer review, aiming to convince people with reason and satisfy authors. 3) Final review by the editor-in-chief. In the three-stage review system, final review by the editor-in-chief or executive editor is the last stage of manuscript evaluation that plays a decisive role in determining publication quality and academic level of journals. The final review is mainly responsible for overall assessment of political orientation, academic quality, and editing/publishing quality of publications; therefore strict scrutiny of manuscripts is required.