Peer Review Process

The editorial process and peer-review workflow of the journal are monitored by the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members and professional in-house editors. In the initial stage, the submitted manuscript is reviewed and evaluated by in-house editors to ensure the quality of the submitted manuscripts and whether it is matched to the focus and scope and policies of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief has then confirmed the quality of the manuscript before assigning to an Editorial Board Member or in-house editor to handle the review process. The Editorial Board Member or in-house editor appoints two independent reviewers according to the topics to review the manuscripts.

The journal follows a double-blind peer review, where the identity of both the reviewers and authors of the manuscripts remain anonymous. The action ensures a fair and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by the reviewers.

Authors can suggest up tofive academically reviewerswho are in the field of the submitted manuscripts. The list of reviewers suggestion should prepare either in one document with the cover letter and manuscript or can directly submit in the Comments to the Editor box in the first step of the manuscript submission in the system. Authors are required to submit a word document stating the following information:

• Full name (first name followed by last name)
• Position
• Institution/affiliation
• Institution/affiliation's postal address
• Active email address
• Telephone number (if any)
• Fax number (if any)

However, the recommended reviewers are up to the decision of the Editorial Office, and the editorial office has the right to select new reviewers to review the manuscript.

After the evaluations by the reviewers have been received, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision and suggest one of the following recommendations to authors based on the reviewers' report:

• Accept
• Accept with minor revision
• Accept with major revision
• Reject

Authors are given 20 days to resubmit the revised manuscript if the editorial decision is a minor revision. If the editorial decision is a major revision, authors need to resubmit the revised manuscript within 45 days. The resubmitted manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether the manuscript is acceptable. The second review by the reviewers may be needed, subject to the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, particularly, for a manuscript with major revision.

Authors may appeal for a rejected submission. Appeal requests must be made in writing to editorial office at editor.itps@accscience.com with detailed reasons for the appeal and point by point responses to the reviewers' remarks in the rebuttal letter. Decisions on appeals are final without exception.

Reviewing Process Flow Chart