(1) Authors should submit their manuscripts via this website. All manuscripts received will be archived in the “Original Manuscripts” database.
(2) The reviewing process involves a preliminary review by the Editorial Board and an external review by two international experts within the specialty.
(3) Preliminary review
The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors-in-Chief make preliminary judgments based on the relevance, field, format, and quality of the manuscript.
Editorial Assistants collect the manuscripts and input those which have passed the preliminary review to the “Manuscripts” database. The author(s) will be informed of the preliminary review results.
(4) External review
The Editorial Board initiates the external review procedure. Each manuscript that has passed the preliminary review is sent to two international experts for an anonymous review.
Review results for the manuscripts are ranked in five categories:
Strongly recommended for publication (90 points or above);
Recommended for publication (80-89 points);
Revision needed before acceptance (75-79 points);
Revision needed before another round of review (70-74 points);
Rejected (69 points or below).
Manuscripts that receive 75 points or above from both reviewers will be listed as “accepted manuscripts”, subject to the Editorial Board's decision for publication. Manuscripts rated 74 points or below by both reviewers will be rejected.
If there is a large discrepancy in the number of points given by the two reviewers, but one rating 75 points or above, then the manuscript will be sent to a third reviewer. The Journal will decide based on the finding of the third reviewer.
If the reviewer states “Revision needed before acceptance” or “Revision needed before another round of review”, the Journal will ask the author(s) to revise the manuscript. The revised manuscript should be re-submitted within two weeks, supplemented by “Notes of revision” that respond to the reviewer’s comments. The Journal will ask the Editor-in-Chief or the original reviewers for a second round of review. A decision on whether to proceed with the manuscript will be made according to the results of the second round of reviewing.
(5) All manuscripts that pass the review are listed as “accepted manuscripts” and are submitted to the Editorial Board for publication.
(6) Avoiding bias
If a member of the Editorial Board is the author of a submitted manuscript, he/she should not participate in the reviewing process (including both preliminary review and external review).
Authors of submitted manuscripts should not participate in discussions about the proposed publication list without the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.
The relevance of research direction and achievement will be considered when inviting peer reviewers. A reviewer should not be invited if he/she and the author have a relationship as listed below:
Has served in the same department/institute/unit in the past three years;
Advisor and advisee for PhD/Master thesis in the past three years.
The invited reviewer should declare if they find that they have any of the following relationships with the author. He/she should notify the Editorial Board as soon as possible.
Co-authorship of papers or publications in last two years;
Collaborators in an on-going research project when invited for review;
Spouse or relatives or affinities within three generations;
Potential conflicts of interest.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to make decisions when there is any potential conflict of interest.
(7) Other issues
Manuscripts that have been accepted but have waited for more than six months have priority to be published in recent issues.
Author may provide two to three “Avoided Reviewers” for the Editorial Board's reference.
Before the manuscript is published formally, if there is a case against academic ethics, the Editorial Board will meet and decide. If there are problems with the manuscript which cannot be solved within a limited period, the Editor-in-Chief will make the decision.
For the benefit of the author, the Editorial Board will notify the reviewers that one month is allowed for the review process. If the review process is estimated to be delayed for more than one week, the invited reviewer should notify the Editorial Board and recommend an alternative reviewer as soon as possible.
The manuscripts rated as “Strongly recommended for publication”, “Recommended for publication”, “Revision needed before acceptance”, and those that pass the second round review will be submitted to the Editorial Board to confirm publication. For manuscripts that have been confirmed, the Journal will send the “Author Permission to Publish Form” and “Copyright Agreement Form” documents to the authors. The authors should sign and return the documents before final publication.
Withdrawal of Manuscript
(1) Author(s) can write to the Journal to withdraw the manuscript.
(2) If an author(s) request to withdraw a manuscript is made during the preliminary review process, then the Editorial Board will not consider another manuscript from the author within the same year.