編集方針と編集プロセス
原稿を受け付けた理由
•著者の貢献とその分野での関連性、優れたテクニカルライティングスキルと研究デザインの質
•たとえば、数値が平均値や期待値から離れている場合の大きな差異を説明したり、多くの人に影響を与える未解決の問題に光を当てたりすることによって、重要な問題への洞察を提供します。
•この洞察は、意思決定を行う人々、特に長期的な組織上の意思決定、または私たちの特定の分野では家族の意思決定に役立ちます。
•その洞察は、新しいフレームワーク、新しい理論、または既存の理論の発展を開発するために使用されます。
•洞察により新たな重要な疑問が生まれる
•問題を調査するために使用される方法が適切である（データの収集とデータの解釈など）。
•使用される手法は厳密に適用されており、データが結論を裏付ける理由と方法を説明しています。
•関連分野または学際的な分野の以前の研究を相互に接続することで、記事の解釈がより明確になります。
この記事は良いストーリーを伝えています:よく書かれていて理解しやすく、議論は論理的で内部矛盾はありません
原稿の拒否理由
• Does not fall within the Aims and Scope: This is a common mistake. The emphasis of the manuscript is not in the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of the targeted journal are not followed.
• Fails the technical screening (Poor English grammar, style, and syntax): The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized. The article is currently under review process at another journal. The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures. The English is not proficient for the peer review process; the figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read. References are incomplete or very old.
• Insufficient/Incomplete data: It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the studys question. The article contains observations but is not a full study. It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.
• Methods/Analysis data is seen to be defective: Details are insufficient to repeat the results. The design of study, instruments used, and procedures followed should clear. But in some cases it could be better to put too much information into the methods section rather than to put too little. The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.
• Over interpretation of results: Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and honest approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to increase the chances of a manuscript to be accepted. Identify possible partial and stunning variables, both during the preliminary phase of the study and the elucidation of the results. Describe the experimental results briefly.
• Incomprehensible/Unsatisfactory data: Make tables and graphs easy to understand. Some editors start looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures to determine if the manuscript is worth considering. The language, structure, or figures are very poor that the merit can't be analyzed. Have a native English speaker to read and assess the quality of the paper.
• Conclusions not supported by data: Make sure your conclusions are not overemphasize, are supported, and answer the studys query. Make sure to contribute alternative clarification, and do not simply restate the results. The conclusions should not ignore large portions of the literature.
• Simply a small extension of a different paper, inaccurate literature: Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only list references relevant to the study. Findings are incremental and do not advance the field. The work is clearly but larger part of a study is chopped to make possible number of articles.
•著者が査読者の提案に対処するために原稿を修正することに消極的である:査読者の提案を考慮して原稿を修正すると、常に出版に適したより良い原稿が得られます。編集者が改訂版の評価を提案した場合、査読者の懸念に十分に対処できれば、その原稿は出版可能になる可能性があることを意味します。