■ Reviewers
1. Peer Review
All Research Papers and Short Papers that pass the initial editorial assessment undergo a double-anonymized peer-review process involving at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. If the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited. The Editor makes the final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript, based on the reviewers’ reports and the academic merit of the submission, in consultation with the Editorial Board.
2. Selection of Reviewers
The Editor or a designated editor selects at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise, taking into account recommendations from Editorial Board members. Each selected reviewer receives an official review invitation. If an invited reviewer declines, an alternative reviewer may be selected.
■ Review Criteria
Reviewers assess the suitability and quality of submitted manuscripts based on the following academic and manuscript quality criteria.
1. Academic Aspects
(1) Originality of the research
(2) Scholarly significance of the research
(3) Appropriateness of assumptions and analysis
(4) Mathematical soundness (where applicable)
(5) Quality and appropriateness of supporting evidence, including data where applicable
(6) Logical coherence of arguments
2. Manuscript Quality
(1) Is the manuscript well organized?
(2) Is the manuscript of appropriate length?
(3) Is the manuscript grammatically correct and clearly written?
(4) Does the title accurately represent the content?
(5) Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the manuscript?
(6) Do the keywords adequately represent the key concepts of the manuscript?
(7) Does the conclusion adequately reflect the findings and arguments?
(8) Do the references adequately cover relevant previous research?
(9) Are the figures and tables clear and appropriate, where applicable?
■ Review of Manuscript
Reviewers assess submitted manuscripts according to the review criteria specified in these guidelines. Reviewers should provide a recommendation on publication and an overall quality rating as follows.
1. Judgment on Appropriateness
(1) Accept in present form: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision.
(2) Accept with revision: The manuscript is suitable for publication subject to specified revisions.
(3) Re-review required upon revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision and subsequent re-review before a final decision is made.
(4) Decline: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
2. Judgment on Quality Level
(1) Excellent
(2) Good
(3) Average
(4) Below Average
(5) Poor
■ Deadline of Review
Reviewers are asked to complete their review and submit the review report within one month of accepting the review invitation. The deadline may be extended with the approval of the Editor.
■ Process of Review Results
1. Request for Revision
When revisions are recommended, authors will be notified of the reviewers’ comments and requested to revise their manuscripts accordingly.
2. Submission of Revised Manuscripts and Re-review
Authors should submit their revised manuscripts, together with responses to the reviewers’ comments, by the deadline separately specified by the editorial office when the review results are communicated. Manuscripts receiving a decision of “Re-review required upon revision” will undergo another round of peer review.
3. Publication
Once a manuscript has been accepted by the Editor, it proceeds to publication in accordance with the journal’s publication schedule.
4. Rejection or Closure
A manuscript may be rejected or its submission process closed in the following cases:
(1) A manuscript will be rejected if the final editorial decision is “Decline.”
(2) A submission may be closed if the authors fail to submit the revised manuscript by the deadline specified by the editorial office, unless an extension has been approved.
■ Objections
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a written statement specifying the reasons for their objection. The Editor will review the appeal in consultation with the Editorial Board. If the Editor has a conflict of interest, the appeal will be handled by another independent editor.
■ Reviewer Ethics
All reviewers must comply with the journal’s Publication Ethics guidelines, including requirements for confidentiality, impartiality, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
■ Additions
The Editorial Board may discuss any additional matters concerning the journal’s review guidelines and publication procedures.