|Guidelines for Reviewers|| > For Authors and Reviewers > Guidelines for Reviewers
This journal is published biannually (on June 30th and December 30th). Manuscripts can be submitted at any time; the submission deadlines are January 15th and July 15th of every year.
2. The review process
The editorial board oversees all details regarding the review process according to the following schedule.
- Start date of review: Prior to January 31st and July 31st
- Deadline for the reviewer’s report: February 20th and August 20th
- Notification of the board’s decision to the author: Within two weeks after the reviewer’s report deadline
- Deadline for submitting a revised manuscript: April 10th and October 10th
3. Procedures for the review
- The editorial board chooses two reviewers who are qualified experts in the subject field.
Reviewers can be designated from among the editorial board members.
- Reviewers must be disinterested persons capable of providing objective reviews of the manuscript.
- Each reviewer must provide a detailed report on the designated form.
- Authors and reviewers will remain anonymous during the reviewing process.
- The editorial board decides whether to publish, based on reviewers’ reports.
- In the case of disagreement between the reviewers regarding the merit of a manuscript, the head of the editorial board can request a review by a third reviewer to determine whether to publish the manuscript.
4. Payment for review
- The editorial board will pay the designated fee to the reviewers for their reports.
- Reviewers must give their account information to the editorial board when they send their reports via e-mail.
5. Criteria for a review
Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript meets one of the following criteria:
- A) An article that explores new horizons in the specific area, based on the history and status of the relevant research field.
- B) An article that raises new critical issues that could develop new research areas or methods.
- C) An article that reveals new and useful material and explores its significance in the context of a relevant research area.
- D) An article that can be expected to contribute to the development of a relevant field.
- The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript according to the following five points: (a)"clarity of its purpose and motivation," (b)"ingenuity and originality," (c) "detailed content," (d)" utilization of references and academic contribution," and (e) "consistent development of a thesis, uniformity of terms, and conformity with the submission guideline.”
- The reviewer should score the manuscript as A (excellent), B (no problem), or C (there is a problem) for each point and provide additional comments as necessary.
6. Results of the review
The publication decision will be issued as follows:
- A: Publishable (revision of some words and expressions may be requested)
- B: Publishable with revision (the revised manuscript will be examined again by the reviewers)
- C: Resubmission (The revised paper can be submitted again to the next issue)
- D: Unpublishable
7. Certificate for publication
A certificate for publication will be issued by the editor-in-chief after confirmation by the editorial board.