Review Procedure

The editorial board takes responsibility for reviewing submitted manuscripts.

• The subject of the submitted manuscripts must be appropriate for the Journal’s objective.
• If the manuscript is not compliant with the Journal’s submission rules, the editorial board may request amendments or withhold review of the manuscript.
• The Journal considers all manuscripts on the strict condition that they are original and unpublished and that they have not been under consideration for publication or in press elsewhere. The contributor must comply with the Journal’s ethical rules. If not, contributing manuscripts to this Journal will be prohibited for two years.
• The editorial board reviews all submitted manuscripts through the following criteria and evaluation procedures, and then make decisions for publications:
  • Appropriateness for academic papers, validity of research methods, completeness of contents, integrity of writing, accuracy of citation of references, creativity of research subject, academic contribution of research results (expected effect), and suitability of abstracts, suitability as a manuscript to be published in this journal, and the fact that the manuscript is unpublished in other journals.
  • Each item of evaluation is scored as 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 points.
  • According to the final combined scores of each item, all the submitted manuscripts will be determined to be publishable (90-100 points), published after revision (75-89 points), reconsideration after revision (60-74 points), or to be unpublishable (less than 60 points).

The editorial board decides on whether to publish the submitted manuscript based on the following procedure.

• The editorial board holds an official meeting to select evaluators for manuscript review. Any editorial board members who submit their manuscripts are completely excluded from reviewer selection.
• Each manuscript reviewer is recommended by an editorial board member who is a subject area expert. Final decisions on reviewers are made with the consent of other editors. To ensure a fair review, evaluators should not be connected to the contributor (such as alumni or have a vested interest in the contributor).
• If there is no editorial board member whose major matches with that of the contributor of the submitted manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief recommends a suitable evaluator and request them to review the manuscript.
• According to the subject field of the manuscript, the editorial board selects two evaluators in the relevant fields and requests the review.
• For a fair review process, any information regarding the contributor and the evaluator will be kept confidential.
• The editorial board decides whether or not to publish the manuscript based on the review opinions submitted by the two evaluators.
• The review results are divided as follows:
  • Manuscripts that are determined to be “publishable” will be published without modification.
  • Manuscripts judged to be “Accept with Revision” will be reviewed again by the editorial board after modification before reaching a decision on publication.
  • Manuscripts judged as “Revision and Resubmit” are reviewed again by the editorial board or the evaluators selected by the editorial board after the revision, and then the final decision for the publication is made.
• The review results are operated based on the following procedure.
  • The review results of all manuscripts are notified to the editorial board and contributors online.
  • As for manuscripts categorized as “Accept with Revision,” authors should resubmit the revised manuscripts withing a specified period of time. The revised manuscripts will be reviewed again by the editorial board after modification before reaching a decision on publication.
  • As for manuscripts categorized as “Revision and Resubmit,” the resubmitted manuscripts are reviewed again by reviewer.
• In order to ensure fairness in the review process, the submitted papers by either the editor-in-chief or editorial members must be reviewed by evaluators who are not personally close to or in conflict with the authors.

he authors may file a written objection to the editorial board’s final judging results. The editorial board may review the objection of the authors and follow the procedure. The results of reviewing the objection are notified to the authors.

• (Objection to Review Results) Contributors can raise objection to review results via letter or email within 14 days after being notified of the final results.
• (Objection Review Procedure) Immediately upon receipt of the objection, the editor-in-chief must convene an editorial meeting to deliberate on the objections raised; and then inform the contributor of the final decision made on their paper. Any follow-up action should be taken according to the result of the deliberation.