|
| | Peer Review Policy |
Basic Guideline for Peer Review
1) Peer review shall be based on the evaluation on originality, technical sound,
social usefulness, rich contents, logical structure and lucid writing style.
It should be in accordance with the descriptions of a review report form.
2) It is critically important to assure speedy peer review from the viewpoint of providing better services to both readers and authors in these days where
academics and technologies are progressing at a very high speed. The
following points should be considered in promoting the prompt peer review.
- The conclusion must be assertive, and the reviewers should do their utmost
to make their assessment and judgment criteria as explicit as possible to the authors.
- Reviewers should avoid giving excessive advice to the authors and refrain from getting into undue discussions with them. When a difference of opinion persists,
the reviewer should raise the question for further discussion in the magazine or journal, but not in their capacity as a reviewer.
3)The style of the paper should be the same as that for a research paper or
a survey paper. A research paper must be one written by the author himself
and should have high originality. A survey paper should be one of high quality,
in which the author has added some novel content to his already-published
papers and which would give a clear research trend for the same author (or
group of authors).
4)Research papers and survey papers should be, in principle, a maximum of
10 pages in print.
Process of Peer Review
1) Two reviewers will be assigned to each research paper and survey paper. (Associate Editor in Chief, appointed by the Editor in Chief, assigns
a Responsible Editor and the RE will assign two reviewers to the paper.)
2) Reviewers will make their evaluations of the paper within 4 weeks by sending
back their report to the Responsible Editor.
3) When at least one of the reviewers or the Responsible Editor finds it necessary
to make a reference about the content of the paper, the RE will send the author
the conditions in order for the paper to be accepted. The RE will provide
the reviewers with the response of the author, asking for their evaluation.
The reviewers shall inform the RE of their report within four weeks.
4) Based on the reports of the reviewers, the Responsible Editor will carry out
a meta-review within two weeks. The RE, at the time of the meta-review, may
ask the reviewers for their comments again showing the reports. The reviewers
may modify their reports if they consider it necessary.
5) Responsible Editor should make a comprehensive decision by making his
own peer review, not taking the average of the two reports. The decision of the
RE thus could be different from those of the reviewers.
6) Responsible Editor should make a draft review report and his comments for
the amendment to gain the approval of the Associate Editor in Chief. The AEiC
and RE may consult the Editor in Chief, if they find difficulty making the decision.
7) Associate Editor in Chief then provides the Editor in Chief with the final report, while the Secretariat informs the author of the recommendation and asks him to amend the paper.
8) The Secretariat distributes the final report to the members of the Editorial Board.
Notes: The process from 3) to 5) described above shall not be repeated more than twice.
|
|
