Peer Review Process

Willingness 

Peer reviewers should inform the editor about the willingness to do a review on the manuscript to be published. If unwilling, peer reviewers must notify the editor.

Confidentiality

The reviewed manuscript is a confidential document. Communication with other parties without the author's permission is prohibited.

Standard Objectivity  

Peer reviewers must take hold on the principles of objectivity and avoiding personal criticism against the author of the manuscript during the review process. All comments must be accompanied by clear and supportive suggestions.

Reference Clarity  

Peer Reviewers are recommended to provide information to the authors of the research with the literature, or relevant case studies which have not been cited, having a substantial similarity or overlap with the manuscripts reviewed.

Conflicts of Interest

• Peer reviewers are not allowed to use unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances.The information and ideas contained in the reviewed manuscript is confidential and should not be distributed or used for personal gain.If having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution or company involved in publishing, peer reviewers are not permitted to evaluate the related manuscript.
• Peer reviewers are entitled to provide the authors with some feedbacks to foster the quality of the published manuscript and editors for the decision making of editorial policy in accordance to their respective expertise The review process goes through the following stages:

  1. Initial screening

  The newly submitted manuscripts are subject to the initial review by the board of editors that focuses on the manuscript compliance to the focus, scope, and journal template. Upon meeting the requirements, the journal manager will send the manuscript to the section editor, who will send it to two peer reviews of the same scientific field.

  2. Peer review

  The review process is conducted through a double blind review, where the writer and reviewer do not know each other.

  3. First decision

  Editorial decision of the manuscript is made based on the decision of two peer reviews. If one of the peer reviews rejects the manuscript, the section editor will find an additional peer review to provide additional input before making a decision. At this stage, the manuscript can be immediately accepted without revision, accepted with revision or rejected. The accepted manuscripts are sent directly by the journal manager to the editor, while those accepted with revision or rejected are sent back by the journal manager to the author. The authors are provided two weeks to revise the manuscript. If the author does not resend the manuscript within the specified time, section editor will contact the author to confirm the continuation of the manuscript.

  4. Revision stage

  The revised manuscripts are sent to the section editor. The section editor will check the appropriateness of the revision with the feedback from the peer reviewers. If the manuscript is revised according to the provided feedback, the section editor will proceed it to the Editor in chief. In contrast, revisions that do not comply with the reviewer’s feedback will be returned to the author.

  5. Final Decision

  Manuscripts that have been examined by the section editor will be sent to the Editor in Chief. In this stage, the Editor in Chief will examine the entire manuscript before passing the submission over to the layout editor.