1. Manuscript review is conducted through an online review system.

• 1) According to the content of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief will appoint a responsible editor among the editorial board members, and that editor will appoint reviewers.
• 2) The submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by two or more reviewers.

2. The review criteria, review results, and publication decisions should be both equitable and rigorous and in accordance with the standard set forth below.

• 1) The criteria for manuscripts are originality, academic contribution, validity of results, interpretation of results, effective development of thesis, and appropriateness of references. Reviewers should judge the manuscript strictly and objectively in accordance with the criteria.
• 2) Review results shall be one of the following: 'publish as is', 'revision without re-review', 'revision with further review', and 'rejection'.
• 3) The publication decision will be made based on 2/3 or more of the reviewers' recommendation.
• 4) The final publication decision will be made by the responsible editor and the editorial board.
  • (1) If the reviewers recommend 'publish as is', the responsible editor can review the manuscript and ask for further revision. When that editor confirms the revision as satisfactory, the publication process should start.
  • (2) Even when the reviewers recommend 'publish as is', the responsible editor may ask the editorial board to re-examine the manuscript when a specific reason exists. In such event, the final publication decision shall be made by the editorial board.

3. Appointed reviewers are obliged to conduct a fair review of the manuscript in accordance with this regulation.

• 1) Reviewers shall complete the review within 14 days after being invited to review.
• 2) If a reviewer does not complete the review within 30 days after being invited to review, the reviewer may be disinvited.
• 3) Reviews shall be anonymous and reviewers are expected to keep all aspects related to the review process and the review results confidential.
• 4) Reviewers shall observe the regulation when reviewing the manuscript, and should specifically mention reasons for their judgment and comments.

4. The review or publication process will be undertaken only when a revised manuscript is submitted within three months of the review report. A manuscript that has not been revised within three months shall be judged to be rejected, unless there is a reason acceptable to the editorial board.

5. Items not specified in this regulation shall be processed in accordance with the customs of the academic community and analogous regulations, and the editor-in-chief shall report the process and results to the editorial committee and promptly revise regulations accordingly.