Peer Review Policy

This journal use blind peer review. Any accepted manuscript will be reviewed by at least two reviewers, plus editorial comments. The author is required to revised the manuscript according to reviewer and editors comments. Editor team will process it for later publication.

  1. The editors have the responsibility of evaluating the documents and submitting a review to the publisher in order to determine the paper's viability.
  2. Reviewing the papers promptly (on time) in compliance with the scientific guideline (Data collection process, author's legality, results, etc.).
  3. Checking the records corrected according to the standards.
  4. Motivating the author to develop documents by offering reviews, feedback, feedback and advice.
  5. Maintaining the privacy of the author by covering the findings and recommendations obtained from the author.
  6. Reviewers shall not analyze documents which directly or indirectly involve reviewers in their work.
  7. Following the peer review criteria for the review of articles and evaluation of the editors' appraisal types document.
  8. Substantially reviewing the papers by not correcting the grammar, punctuation and mistype.
  9. Ensuring reality, novelty and originality principles; prioritize the paper's benefits for research, technology and innovation development; also realizing the effect on science-based writing.
  10. The author or third parties who may give rise to a decision reference being prohibited in defending their own judgment being non-objective.
  11. Enhances the objective meaning and is free of influences.
  12. Ensure that the results of the paper remain confidential before they are published.
  13. Expertise is commonly known and the paper can be reviewed accurately and properly.
  14. Do not check if the study is not in the specialist sector. Rather, if there are other experts on the topics, the peer review should give the researcher recommendations.
  15. Be open-minded to consider the new viewpoints or views of those that differ from your personal views.
  16. Reject the examination if the editor's time limit cannot be met. If the peer review is lacking the editor should be informed as soon as possible.
  17. There must be honest, objective and clear arguments for the results of the review. Some suggestions from the review are:
  18. Accepted without being repaired
  19. Less repair accepted (It is not necessary to go to peer review after the reparation by the author).
  20. Admitted for major repairs (Return to the peer review for revision after reparation by the author).
  21. Rejected and recommended for further release.
  22. Rejected and recommended that no publication be published because the paper is scientifically defective for the community.
  23. To reject the last recommendation as the final choice relating to the feasibility and/or to indicate serious infringements of the author's code of ethics.
  24. Reviewed documents may not be used for the interests of individuals or third parties. In addition, the author has to have given permission to use some of the contents of the papers reviewed.