Peer-review procedure

We consider that one of the main objectives of the peer-review system is improving the quality of a candidate’s manuscript. The editorial board ensures that submitted materials are subject to peer review by independent anonymous experts.

The submitted article is first considered to decide whether a particular article falls within the journal’s thematic field, then the article is sent to reviewers for further approval by two leading experts in the field. The names of the authors and reviewers and their affiliations are not disclosed to each other.

The manuscript received for publication is treated as a confidential document. The article is not presented to or discussed with other parties except those authorized by the editor. Editorial staff must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editors’ own research without the express written consent of the authors. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and not disclose information about or from the reviewed article to unauthorized persons.

In the event of any conflict of interest (personal interest, personal animosity, financial or scientific conflicts, etc.), reviewers must immediately inform the editorial board. If such a conflict is recognized, the reviewer is excluded from the review process and another reviewer is appointed.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and exclude themselves from the review process.

Factors considered during the review are relevance, thoroughness, significance, originality, readability, and appropriate language style.

We recommend that a negative evaluation result explain the weaknesses of the manuscript so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and improve the manuscript based on these comments.

Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editor’s discretion). We believe in constructive criticism. Criticism of the author’s personality is inappropriate.

Reviewers’ comments should be sufficiently informative and useful so that an editorial decision can be made. Authors should not confuse direct and truthful comments with unfair criticism.

Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the author. A reviewer should also draw the editor’s attention to any substantial similarities or overlaps between the reviewed manuscripts and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Referees should clearly express their views together with supporting arguments. Evaluators are expected to suggest to authors how they can strengthen their work to make it acceptable.

With the help of reviewers’ comments, a final decision is made (1. The article cannot be published in the presented form; 2. The article requires correction according to objections and proposals; 3. The article may be published in the form presented by the author) and sent to the corresponding author.

Reviewers must present an expert evaluation of the manuscript, usually within 10–14 days.