Review Process

Reviewers will be chosen by the Editing Committee based on subject's appropriateness to the field, region, and academic contributions. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least three people: the editor-in-chief, field editor, and two reviewers. Primarily, the editor-in-chief will review the nature of the article and judge the fit of the manuscript with IJCF. The secondary blind review will be conducted by two reviewers appointed by the editing committee. If one of the two reviewers rejects the article, the editing committee will have the manuscript re-reviewed by another reviewer. If two of the three reviewers judge 'not to publish the manuscript in IJCF', it will not be published.

Review criteria include (1) creativity, (2) academic value, (3) logical organization and development, (4) adequateness of methodology, and (5) compliance with the aims and scope of IJCF.

Results of the review include "publish", "reject", "publish with minor revisions", and "re-review with major revisions". In the case of "publish with minor revisions" or "re-review with major revisions", the author will correct the article according to the recommendations of the reviewers and submit it with a "correction report". The reviewers will confirm the corrections and re-review it. After an initial judgment of "publish", if the manuscript is thereafter deemed "not publishable" due to a discovery of plagiarism or any other reason, the editing committee will review the article again. If the author does not correct the manuscript in accordance with review results, the editing committee may decide whether to publish the article in its existing condition or not. Anything not described in this page will be dealt with by the editor-in-chief according to custom and will be reported to the editing committee.