1. Review process
The following review process will take place when a manuscript is received by the Editor-in-Chief.
• When a manuscript has been received by the Editor-in-Chief, an acknowledgement of receipt will be sent to the author(s) via email. The Editor in Chief chooses an editor to handle the manuscript review.
• The submitted manuscript will be subjected to screening review for its scope, novelty, completeness, English level, and conformation to NST policies. A manuscript not passing the pre-refereeing process will immediately be returned to the authors.
• The editor in charge will select an expert reviewer to evaluate the manuscript.
• As a result of review, if the editor determines that revision by the author(s) is necessary, the manuscript will be returned to the authors for revision.
• Manuscripts returned to authors for revision should be resent promptly. If the revision cannot be finished within three month, the manuscript will be regarded as having been withdrawn.
• The Editor in Chief will finally decide whether to accept the manuscript for publication.
• Authors can submit a written appeal against rejection only once.
2. Manuscript revision
For revising a manuscript after the first review process, authors are requested to respond fully to the reviewer’s comments that have been sent by the editor. If the revision cannot be finished within three months, the manuscript will be regarded as having been withdrawn. On submitting the revised manuscript, authors are encouraged to attach a concise reply to all the reviewer’s recommendations and criticisms together with a list of the manuscript changes. These materials will normally be forwarded to the reviewer. Some authors copy out each of the reviewer’s comments and include their response immediately after. It is helpful for the reviewer if the locations of manuscript changes are indicated, for example, in the attachment of a second copy of the manuscript with the changes highlighted or underlined.
3. Acceptability decision
When the revised manuscript is submitted after the first round of reviewer’s report and the editor finds that the authors’ responses and revisions are persuasive, the manuscript is judged to be acceptable for publication by the editor. Otherwise, the editor concludes that a further review process is necessary. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on a paper that has been judged to be acceptable by the editor, after considering the contents of the paper and the review records.
4. Reviewer candidate list
Authors are requested to submit a list of experts who are considered to be especially suited to review their article. This is particularly welcome when a highly specialized expertise is required for reviewing the article. The editor is, however, not obliged to select a reviewer from that list.
Authors may appeal a rejection of the article judged by the Editor–in-Chief. For making an appeal, a request in written form together with all relevant information should be sent to the Editor–in-Chief. On the Editor–in-Chief’s request, the Editorial Board members may review the case on the existing record or may ask for additional expert opinion. The Editor–in-Chief will make the final decision on the appeal, which will be sent to the authors and/or reviewers. This appeal process is carried out only once.