Power Capacitor and Reactive Power Compensation strictly implements the peer review system, which mainly includes the following requirements: It is expected that every reviewer will provide an objective and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript based on its scientific quality and integrity. Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential until the article is published. The review report should offer constructive criticism to help the authors improve their work. Reviewers are requested to disclose any conflicts of interest and notify the Editorial Department if they decline the review invitation.

1. Confidentiality: Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. The article and its contents must not be shown or discussed with anyone without the express authorization of the editor. Reviewers must not use the contents of a manuscript for their own benefit.

2. Objectivity: Reviewer comments should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the scientific facts, without personal or professional bias. Reviewer comments should focus on the academic quality of the manuscript regardless of the author's race, gender, religion, belief, position, or qualifications. Personal criticism and derogatory comments will not be tolerated. A clear and comprehensive review report should be provided, supported by well-organized reasoning and concrete evidence.

3. Professionalism: Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript in terms of novelty, scientific quality, and practical application of the study with a professional attitude. Reviewers are asked to assess: 1) whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and whether the study is appropriately designed and technically sound; 2) whether the manuscript's results can be reproduced based on the detailed description of the experimental process; 3) whether the authors' conclusions are justified given the data. If the reviewer becomes aware of any academic misconduct, confidentiality issue, or politically sensitive issue related to the manuscript, they should immediately raise these concerns with the Editorial Department. Detailed and constructive revision suggestions should be provided so that the authors can correctly understand and address these points.

4. Review request decline: If the reviewer believes that the topic of the manuscript is outside their area of expertise, or they are not an expert on a particular aspect of the manuscript, or they cannot provide a comprehensive review report of the study, or they cannot complete the review within the deadline, they should promptly decline to perform the review.

5. Conflict of interest: Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as interfering with the objective assessment of the paper. Such conflicts include (but are not limited to) personal, financial, or professional competing interests with the authors. Reviewers are expected to abstain from reviewing by sending an email to the Editorial Department offering an explanation of the situation.