Submit an article
Peer review rules

Peer review rules

 

Journal of Digital Life

Guidelines for Reviewers

 

1. Subject to Peer-review
Articles submitted according to the submission guidelines of the Journal of Digital Life are subject to peer review.

 

2. Editorial Board Member in Charge
The editorial board member in charge may be appointed according to the research field of the submitted article.

 

3. Reviewer and Editorial Board Member for Decision Making

 

3.1 Each editorial board member in charge appoints one reviewer to review submitted articles. However, if there are inevitable reasons, the reviewer will be selected from among the editorial board members. Technical Article and Secondary Publication will be reviewed by the editorial board member in charge to decide whether or not to publish the article.

 

3.2 Matters that violate the submissi on guidelines shall be dealt with by the editorial board member in charge prior to peer review.

 

3.3 The names of the reviewers shall be anonymous to the authors

 

3.4 Authors may recommend reviewers to the editorial board in advance. However, the editorial board members are not necessarily required to contact the reviewers recommended by the authors, and it is not allowed to recommend the authors’ colleagues or close collaborators as reviewers.

 

3.5 When a reviewer is offered a peer-review by an editorial board member and withdraws from the peer-review, it is possible to recommend another individual as a reviewer. In that case, when registering personal information such as the name and e-mail address of the recommended individual, prior consent shall be obtained from the recommended individual regarding the use of the personal information for the purpose of peer review. In addition, when registering personal information for use in the online article submission system, the purpose of use should be clarified and prior consent should be obtained from the individual for the personal information to be used.

 

4. Peer-review Report
The reviewers shall be supposed to be on an equal relationship with the authors and report on the following items from an objective, academic, and supportive perspective, not based on the reviewers’ subjective values (personal feelings and preferences that are not academic, or general opinions).

 

4.1 Overall Recommendation of the Peer-review Results (Please choose one)

・Grade A: Accept in original form (the assessment result is equivalent to “Acceptable for publication”)

・Grade B: Revisions are required (including a change in the type of article submitted) (the assessment result is equivalent to “Acceptable for publication”)

・Grade C: Major revisions are required (the assessment result is equivalent to ” Requires　 revision”)

・Grade D: Rejected (the assessment result is equivalent to ” Cannot be published”)

The assessment result of Technical Article and Secondary Publication, which are not peer-reviewed but judged directly by the editorial board members in charge, are classified into three categories: “Accepted,” ” Requires revision,” and “Rejected.

・Accepted: Accept in original version of the article

・Requires revision: Revisions are required (such as changing in the type of article submitted and correcting of English expressions)

・Rejected: Articles that clearly do not meet the requirements for publication, or articles that are inappropriate for publication

 

4.2 Comments on the Overall Assessment
The reviewers provide comments on the overall assessment, including the appropriateness of the title, relevance to previous research, correspondence between research purpose and results, appropriateness of the structure of the article, originality, reliability of data, and appropriateness of expression.

 

4.3 Comments on the Revision
The reviewers provide comments on what should be modified

 

5. Overall Recommendation of the Peer-review Results

 

5.1 According to the overall recommendation of the peer-review results, the editorial board member in charge decides whether to accept or reject the article and reports the decision to the editorial office.

 

5.2 If it is difficult to make a decision on acceptance or rejection based on the opinions of the editorial board members in charge only, it will be reported to the chief editor and a decision on acceptance or rejection will be made.

 

5.3 If the editorial board member in charge finds any inappropriate expressions or unnecessary comments in the peer-review report in accordance with these peer-review guidelines, it can be removed.

 

6. Decision of Assessment Result
Decision on the result of the assessment shall be made as follows.

 

6.1 Accepted: The original version of the article will be published in the Journal of Digital Life.

 

6.2 Continuing Assessment: The authors shall be asked to revise the article and resubmit it within 14 days. In this case, the authors shall be requested to clearly indicate the modifications as much as possible. The editorial board member in charge will ask the same reviewer as the first reviewer to re-review the revised article. Based on the results of the re-review, the editorial board member in charge will check the details and parts of the revisions, and if the revisions are considered appropriate, the article will be accepted; otherwise, the article will be rejected. If it is considered necessary, another modification shall be requested.

 

6.3 Rejected: The result of the assessment will be sent to the author.

 

6.4 If the reviewer and the editorial board member in charge are different in their decision on the modified article, the decision of the chief editor shall be the final decision.

 

7. Notification of Assessment Result and Revision Request
The editorial board shall notify author of the assessment result and revision request through the editorial office. Regarding the revision request, it will be sent to the author based on the review report from the reviewer.

 

8. Peer-review ProcessThe peer-review period is approximately one month from the receiving of the submitted article.

 

8.1 Receiving submitted articles

 

8.2 Technical check is done by the editorial office, and if there are no problems, the editorial board member in charge is appointed: within one week

 

8.3 Selection and request of reviewers by the editorial board member in charge: within one week

 

8.4 Peer review: within one to two weeks in principle. If peer review is delayed, the editorial board member in charge may consider that the reviewer has withdrawn and may select a new reviewer.

 

8.5 Acceptance or rejection by the editorial board member in charge: within one week

 

8.6 Period when re-review is required: within one week
In the case of a delay in peer review, a decision on acceptance or rejection may be made through discussion among the editorial board members in charge.

 

8.7 Notification of assessment results based on the acceptance or rejection decision by the editorial board: within one week

 

8.8 Publication in the Journal of Digital life: within 4 weeks after receiving the submission

 

9. Objection

 

9.1 If an author raises an objection to an article that has been rejected as a result of the assessment within two weeks, the editorial board shall make a decision as soon as possible. Its decision will be either re-review or rejection of the objection.

 

9.2 The editorial board shall promptly notify the author of the result of its decision.

 

9.3 In case of re-review, the editorial office shall appoint one editorial board member who is the same as the editorial board member at the time of the first submission and request a review.

 

10. Publication of Accepted Article
An accepted article shall be published in the Journal of Digital Life as soon as possible.

 

11. Implementation of Guidelines for Reviewers
These guidelines are enacted from September 1, 2021. The same shall apply to articles that are currently under review at the time of the implementation of these guidelines.

 

We use cookies in order to give you the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies.
Accept
Reject
https://journal-digitallife.com/submit-an-article/for-reviewers/peer-review-rules/
journal-digitallife.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-27
41824
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:UJMWRJR7U2DVMZWI6WXH3LKXGWIM7NAR
<urn:uuid:53139054-59f8-4169-91e2-9e138580fba6>
2022-07-01T10:40:43Z
183.181.96.6
text/html
sha1:PSAJRS7HLXRRLG7FXQ66UWYDXNHFBGLJ
<urn:uuid:40ca2d7a-c8d1-4164-af65-5a3c21ce8910>
https://journal-digitallife.com/submit-an-article/for-reviewers/peer-review-rules/
response
<urn:uuid:e5c8d233-ae22-4586-a493-9b4fa38fcf1a>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-27
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June/July 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-153
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/