There are differences in the use of paper among the first, second, third and fourth districts: the papers in the first district not only have high requirements for innovation, but also have strict requirements for the presentation of the papers, including whether the organizational structure of the articles is reasonable, whether the charts are clear and whether the language is standardized. Most of the reviewers in the first district are big cows in this field, so the requirements will naturally be higher. The second area paper is worse than the first area paper in all aspects, but at least there will be obvious innovation. In addition, I think there is a potential similarity between the papers in 1 area and area 2, that is, there should be enough workload and rich experimental content. In fact, this is also a supplement to their innovation requirements, because to prove that a new idea is correct and effective, there must be a lot of experimental results to support it. Some papers in the third and fourth districts have been passed, and the differences between these papers and those in the first and second districts are obvious. Aside from innovation and workload, some journals in the third and fourth districts have very loose requirements for paper format and varied typesetting, and there may be many unclear and ambiguous places in the charts.