1. Review Process and Review Regulations
1) When a manuscript is received, the editorial committee shall review the manuscript and select reviewers. The reviewers shall appoint three persons from among those who have excellent academic activities in the relevant field.
2) The editor-in-chief shall prepare a "request for review" and send the relevant reviewers a paper subject to examination, a request for review, a written opinion on a review, and a form of the review standard table. For the fairness of the review, plaintiffs, and reviewers do not know each other's names.
3) The reviewers shall choose among (1) Publish without a revision, (2) publish after substantial revision, (3) reevaluate after substantial revision, or (4) do not publish, and shall state the opinions of the review and mark the evaluation standard table and notify the editorial committee.
4) When a reviewer determines that it is "publish after substantial revision" or "reevaluate after substantial revision", shall specify the matters to be corrected, and when he/she determines that it is "do not publish", shall specify the reasons.
5) At the end of the review, three points for publishing without a revision, two points for publishing after substantial revision, one point for reevaluating after substantial revision, and zero points for do not publish, and the average score of three reviewers shall be calculated and determined as follows:
(1) three-point: Publish without a revision
(2) two to three points: publish after substantial revision
(3) one point to two points or less: after the revision, one other reviewer was commissioned to review
(4) less than one point: do not publish
6) The number of the published thesis is finally determined by the editorial committee.
2. Criteria for Reviews
Manuscripts are reviewed based on the following criteria.
(1) Originality and creativity of the subject
(2) Clarity of the Point
(3) Consistency and Feasibility of the point of an argument
(4) Reliability and Accuracy of reference
(5) Leading research