The author’s names, affiliation, acknowledgment and other related personal information will not be revealed to reviewers. And reviewers will keep anonymous to authors.

 

Initial Check

Submitted papers must correspond to one of the topics of the journal

Incomplete Structure

Over length (more than 15 pages)

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism

Low-quality tables or figures

Spelling or grammar errors

 

Peer Review

The paper will be reviewed by at least two reviewers.

Revisions may be requested during the review process.

The second peer-review may be requested after major revision.

The final decisions of acceptance or rejection are made by the Editor.

 

Criteria

Originality and Novelty

Scientific soundness and significance

Quality of presentation

English level

 

Key criteria

Reviewers should consider the following key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation of the papers:

▪ Technical Criteria

- Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness

- Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts

- Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing

▪ Quality Criteria

- Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?

- Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results

- Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?

- Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?

▪ Presentation Criteria

- Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?

- Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?

- Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?

- Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be removed

- Conclusion: Does the paper contain a clear conclusion. The conclusion should summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?

 

Review Policy

Checklist of reviewing a paper

Title

- Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?

Abstract

- Does the abstract provide a summary of the paper?

- Does the abstract include the main question(s) and findings?

Structure and Length

- Does the paper have a complete and well-organized structure?

- Is the paper an appropriate length?

Logic

- Do the data support the conclusions?

- Does the Method target the main question(s) appropriately?

- Are the Results presented clearly and logically?

Figures and Tables

- Are they clearly and adequately described?

- Do they represent what the research is about?

- What do figures and tables add to the paper?

References

- Do the authors include proper references to published literature?

- Is referencing done correctly?

English

- ls the paper well written?

- Is the English understandable and readable?

 

Scientific Quality

Novelty and Originality

- ls the research original and novel?

lmportance and Impact on the Research Area

- ls the research important to the field of research?

- What does the research add to the subject area?

Relevance to the Journal

- ls the question addressed by the research in line with the aim and scope of the journal?

- ls it attractive to the audience?

Completeness of Presentation

- Does the paper have an appropriate structure?

- ls the complete presentation and easy to read?

 

Based on the results of the review, it is necessary to draw up a report containing the following answers:

→ Is the subject matter within the scope?

→ Does the paper contain enough original results to warrant publication?

→ Is the paper technically sound and free of errors?

→ Is the work clearly and concisely presented? Is it well organized?

→ Does the title clearly and sufficiently reflect its contents?

→ Is the abstract informative? Are the main results and conclusions mentioned?

→ Are the illustrations of adequate quality, relevant and understandable?

→ Does the bibliography give a clear view of the current state-of-the-art in the domain?

→ Is the quality of the language satisfactory?

 

Your overall recommendation:

- Accepted

- Accept with minor revisions

- Revaluate with major revisions

- Rejected

 

Editorial Decision

Accepted

The paper is accepted and does not need further modification.

Accept with minor revisions

The paper will be accepted after minor revisions. In such a case, the revised paper will only be reviewed by the editor.

Revaluate with major revisions

The paper will be sent to be reviewed by the original reviewers (unless they opt out) or assessed by the editor.

Rejected

The paper will not be accepted due to major deficiencies. And it is not recommended to be resubmitted.

 

Revision

Authors much revise their papers within the allowed time. Manuscripts with major revisions will be sent to original reviewers for the second-round review. Manuscripts with minor revisions will usually be reviewed by the editor. The final decision will be made by the editor after careful and