Peer Review & Editing
1. Review Policy: All submitted manuscripts are subject to strict double-blind peer-review process. Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field. Reviewed articles are treated confidentially. Articles may be rejected without review if the editor considers the article obviously not suitable for publication. Only manuscripts of high relevance and suitability will enter into the peer review process, which will be conducted by at least two internationally known experts in the field, and will aim to ensure that all published manuscripts provide new scientific knowledge. Authors may suggest that specific individuals be or not be involved as reviewers, but the final decision of acceptance or rejection rests with the editorial board.
2. Self-responsibility: All authors shall be responsible for their own writing. For the accepted manuscripts, the journal may make some technical or wording amendments. However, if the amendment involves a change of meaning, the editorial office will contact the authors for confirmation.
3. Timing: If the review result has not been received more than 6 months after submission, it can be regarded as being rejected. The journal will not issue notice for such cases. The authors cannot re-submit the manuscript to other journals unless they confirm with the editorial office at the first place. If authors do not return the revised manuscript 2 months after receiving reviews’ comments, the manuscript will be regarded as being withdrawn.
4. Submission by Editors: The editorial staff / editors / editorial board members should not be involved in publishing decisions on papers which they have written themselves or have been written by their family members or colleagues. Any such submission should be strictly subject to the journal’s usual editorial process. Peer review should be handled independently from the relevant author/editor and their research groups.