Peer-Review Manuscript

1. Peer-Review Policy

JICS performs peer-review of each manuscript with a Double-blind Process where information of the authors is only provided in "Title Page" during submission to the Editor-in-Chief. The corresponding authors shall ensure that the main manuscript shall not provide the author's name(s), affiliation, and acknowledgment.

When the Section Editor contact Reviewers, the candidate Reviewers should ensure that the following points are fulfilled as follows: 
1. Have a strong background in that field
2. Have expertise that matches the topic of the manuscript
3. Complete the evaluation within four weeks
4. Have no conflict of interest with the topics and authors
5. Treat the manuscript as high confidential documents
6. Have a different affiliation with the authors

Upon agreeing to review the manuscript, the Reviewers will evaluate the paper based on the following points:
1. The title and abstract shall meet the journal scope. 
2. The type of manuscript shall be Recent Research Progress/ Perspective/ Commentary/ Opinion or Mini Review or Review or Full Papers or Communication, not salami papers. The length and format shall follow the journal requirements in the General Author's Guidelines.
3. The reviewer can directly evaluate the main manuscript by providing insert comments. However, a general evaluation of the manuscript must be provided. Comments to the Editor shall be also provided.
4. The originality and quality of the papers shall be evaluated based on the following categories:
a) Accept Submission; Only if the papers qualify all the journal requirements and no need for further revision.
b) Revisions Required; Only if the papers have minor and major revision where the authors agree to revise the papers according to the comments.  
c) Resubmit for Review; If the papers do not follow the journal requirements, need further experiments, and/or consist of unclear results and discussion. 
d) Resubmit Elsewhere; If the topic of the paper is out of the scope, the papers have low originality, and/or unclear research problems.
e) Decline Submission; If the papers have major issues such as flaws the experimental procedure, inaccurate data, illogical discussion, and/or unreasonable claims. 
f) See Comments; If the reviewers give the total decision to the editor. 

Section editor will read the reviewer’s comments or evaluation as well as the recommendation before it can be used to give the best final decision. After that, Section Editor will provide Reviewer Rating from "no rating, one to five stars". Upon confirmation, the Section Editor will provide Reviewer Acknowledgement to Reviewers. The authors shall receive the final decision:
1. Request Revisions; the revised version shall be completed within two weeks.
2. Accept Submission; the manuscript will be continued to the following step (copyediting and layout editing).
3. Decline Submission; the authors can re-submit the manuscript after provided a significantly revised version.

2. Peer-Review Process

The Double-Blind Peer-Review is based on the following process:

3. Reviewers SOP

The reviewers shall follow the SOP to ensure smooth submission of the report. The SOP can be downloaded HERE.