| > For Contributors > For Reviews
We believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of CEO. All of the journal's contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.
Double Blind Peer Review
CEO adopts double blind review which means that the reviewer can not identify author information and authors can not identify reviewers, too.
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.
How to Become a Reviewer
Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office or recommended by authors. Anyone who wants to work voluntarily as a reviewer can contact the editorial office.
Accepting an Invitation to Review
Editors invite you to review as they believe that you are an expert in a certain area. They would have judged this from your previous publication record or posters and/or sessions you have contributed to at conferences. Before you accept an invitation to review a paper, you should consider some questions:
· Are your qualified?
If the manuscript is too far outside your area, you should decline to review it.
· Do you have time?
If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14 days of review period, please decline to review or ask for extension of the review period.
· Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
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.
How to Write Review Comments
After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download PDF files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format, but just concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.
• Review table with 7 items (Originality, Scientific importance, Experimental design, Adequacy of methods, Brevity and clarity, Overall priority for publication, Potential if adequately revised) is provided for the reviewer’s convenience. • Comment to authors: Summarize the whole content of manuscript in one sentence. Mention the strengths of the manuscript, but also any problems that make you believe it should not be published, or that would need to be corrected to make it publishable.• Comment to editor: Both the strength and shortness of the manuscript are recommended to be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here including special opinion to editor.
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.