1. PeerReview: This is the most common way of periodical review, which mainly invites experts in the same field to make anonymous comments on papers. The evaluation experts will evaluate the quality, innovation and research methods of the paper and put forward suggestions for revision. This method can ensure the quality and academic level of the paper, but there may be some subjectivity and prejudice.

2. Double-blind review: On the basis of peer review, neither the author nor the review experts know each other's identity. This can eliminate prejudice and conflict of interest in the evaluation process and improve the fairness of evaluation.

3.Single-blindReview: Only the author does not know the identity of the expert, and the expert knows the author's information. This way can protect the privacy of the author, but it may affect the fairness of the audit.

4.OpenReview: All participants in the review know the information of the paper and the author. This method can improve the transparency of evaluation, but it may be affected by the personal prejudice and conflict of interest of the evaluator.

5. Internal review: the journal editorial department or experts in related fields will review the papers. This method can save time and cost, but it may lack the objective evaluation of external experts.

6.HybridReview: Combining various auditing methods, such as peer review and double-blind review. This method can give full play to the advantages of various auditing methods and improve the accuracy and fairness of auditing.

7. Electronic review: use computer technology and network platform to review papers. This method can improve the audit efficiency and reduce human errors, but there may be some technical risks.

In a word, there are various methods for examining doctoral journals, and each method has its advantages and disadvantages. The editorial department of a periodical needs to choose an appropriate auditing method according to the specific situation to ensure the quality and academic level of the paper.