Peer Review Process

Review Process:

  1. Editor receiving manuscript from author;
  2. Editor evaluates manuscript (journal aim and scope, in-house style, supplementary data); (Rejected if not meet criteria)
  3. Editor screening for plagiarism on offline and online databases manually. It will be evaluated in the office, whether it is suitable for similarity score by using Turnitin or Plagiarism Checker X (maximal 20%) (Rejected if found major plagiarism, contacted author if found redundancy or minor plagiarism for clarification)
  4. The editor sends the manuscript to the reviewer along with the review form (double-blind review, Both reviewer and author remain anonymous to each other). The manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers (Double Blind Review);
  5. Reviewer sends back his review form to Editor (with revised manuscript if necessary);
  6. Reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses.
  7. The suggested decision will be evaluated in an editorial board meeting. Afterward, the editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author (rejected, require major revision, need minor revision, or accepted);
  8. Confirmation to the Author.
  9. If revised, the author revised manuscripts and should be returned to the editor without delay. Returned later than three months will be considered as new submissions.

This journal uses Harvard Dataverse to preserve research data if the author intends to preserve and sharing his/her research data for greater impact on global knowledge. Our review policy regarding this issue is:

  1. Deposited datasets should be treated as part of the article for the purpose of peer review; OR

  2. At acceptance, and prior to the final version of the manuscript, underlying data must be submitted along with a description of how the dataset was created (including any differences from prior versions, and the name of any software packages that were used).

  3. Datasets that derive from work involving human participants should demonstrate that the study participants' privacy was preserved as indicated in the Data Availability Policy. They should also preferably meet the "minimal dataset" requirement described in the Data Availability Policy.

To ensure the certainty of information on submitted manuscripts, we apply the standard service time of the journal as follows: 



Initial Peer Review (Internal Editor Review Process), including: Focus & Scope, the Template of manuscript, Similarity Check

1-2 weeks

Peer-Review Process (double blind peer-review system)

4-8 weeks