- Focus and Scope
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Ethics and Misconducts
- Artificial Intelligence Policy
- Article Processing Charge
- Copyright and License Statement
- Indexing and Abstracting
- Plagiarism Policy
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Digital Preservation
- Withdrawal of Manuscript
- Correction and Retraction
- Revenue Source
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guideline
Components and evaluation indicator Reviewers assessment are described in the following Table:
|
No |
Component |
Evaluation Indicator of reviewer |
|
1 |
Title |
Effectiveness, Specification and clarity |
|
2 |
Abstract (in English) |
Complete and describe the essence of article |
|
3 |
Keywords |
Describing the essential concept of article |
|
4 |
Introduction (background, Objective or scope, literature Review) |
Up-to-date, originality, relevance of the Topic, compatibility of the important reason of the research objective |
|
5 |
Methods |
Accuracy, Specification, and clarity |
|
6 |
Results (Analysis and Synthetic) |
Analysis acuteness |
|
7 |
Discussion (Interpretation) |
Up-to-date finding, relevance to the interrelated researches, and the scientific contribution effect of finding /idea to the development of science |
|
8 |
Conclusion |
Logical, valid, brief and clear |
|
9 |
Suggestion |
For practical action, development of new theory, and next/advanced research |
|
10 |
Bibliography |
Degree of up-to-date and the reference of primary book sources. Rules: at least 90% of the journals or the interrelated scientific researches, above 2008 (year) |



