Enactment revised March 27, 2020
Guideline for reviewers
This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of the journal. All of the journal’s contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.
Double Blind Peer Review
ACM adopts double blind review, which means that the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa.
The role of reviewers
Peer-reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscript to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editorial office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers’ recommendation.
To ensure that reviews are objective, online review guidelines are used to assess various elements, including the title, introduction, methods, results, discussion, organization, abstract, and references.The issues listed below will be considered during the review process.
– Significance to the area of research
– Originality of the research
– Appropriateness of the approach or experimental design
– Appropriateness of the statistical analysis
– Validity of the conclusions and interpretation
– Relevance of the discussion
– Adherence to correct scientific nomenclature
– Appropriateness of the references cited
– Adherence to the Instructions for Authors
– Adequacy of the title and abstract
– Appropriateness of the included tables and figures
– Length of the manuscript
In case of decision to accept the manuscript, editor will send the letter of confirmation to corresponding author. If further correction of the manuscript is needed, detailed comments will be provided.
Ethical guideline for reviewers
1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest as follows:
• Reviewer is a competitor.
• Reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s).
• Reviewer may profit financially from the work.
In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed. A history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not prohibit the review.
3. Reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.