Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer plays an essential role in the peer review process. Efforts of reviewers are the key for the objectives of a fair and timely review process for all of our manuscripts and the publications of only papers of the highest quality. We greatly appreciate reviewers for their help with meeting these important objectives.

Fairness of Review

Reviewers shall regard a submitted manuscript as a privileged and confidential document and not meant to be public, and so should not use, share or disclose unpublished information in a manuscript except with the permission of the authors. The review process shall ensure that all authors have equal opportunity for publication of their papers.

Peer Review Process

1. All submitted articles will be reviewed in a double-blind system for peer-review; both reviewers’ and authors’ identities remain anonymous. 
2. The submitted manuscript will be reviewed by at least two experts: one editorial member as well as one external reviewer.

Review Steps (all steps are taken in JET's OJS and may take up to six weeks):

1. Editor receives a manuscript from author;
2. Editor conducts a desk-evaluation of the manuscript (journal aim and scope, in house style, supplementary data); (Rejected, if not meet criteria)
3. Editor screens for plagiarism on offline and online database manually; (Rejected if found major plagiarism, contacted author if found redundancy or minor plagiarism for clarification)
4. If the manuscript is eligible, the editor selects and invites (through email) two reviewers having relevant expertise, and sends them the manuscript (double-blind review, both reviewer and author remain anonymous to each other);
5. The reviewer may reject the invitation due to (1) not having relevant expertise to the manuscript's topic, (2) having conflict of interest regarding the manuscript and its authors, (3) time constraint. 
6. If the reviewer accepts the invitation to review, he/she starts reading the manuscript (as well as the journal Author Guidelines and the Duties of Reviewers, if needed). 
7. The reviewer undertakes a detailed reading of the manuscript, aiming at giving a rounded and objective evaluation, and writes the review reports on the review platform. The report is structured by writing the answers to a series of core questions. Since the main goal of reviewing is to help the authors improve this and future manuscripts—not to make them give up in despair, a reviewer needs to avoid overly negative wording or personal comments. He/she is expected to point out the main strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses, and suggest specific ways to fix the identified problems. 
8. When he/she thinks necessary, the reviewers can directly put notes on the manuscript;

9. Based on the review, the reviewer decides one of the six routes: (1) Accept without revision, (2) Minor revisions needed, (3) Major revisions needed, (4) Resubmit for Review. (5) Resubmit Elsewhere, or (6) Decline/reject the submission. 
10. Then the reviewer submit the review results to the Editor (with revised manuscript if necessary)

 

Core questions for research-based articles

 Introduction

1. Is the background and literature section up to date and appropriate for the topic?
2. Have the authors emphasized the novelty and/or originality of the study? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better emphasize the novelty. 
3. Does the literature section need expansion or improvement (e.g., are any key citations missing or are citations excessive)? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to provide a broad and balanced review of current research and place their work in the context. 
4. Are the primary (and secondary) objectives clearly stated at the end of the introduction?

 Methods

1. Are the study methods (including theory/applicability/modelling) reported in sufficient detail to allow for their replicability or reproducibility?
2. Are statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, and statistical reporting (e.g., P-values, CIs, effect sizes) appropriate and well described?

Results

1. Is the results' presentation, including the number of tables and figures, appropriate to best present the study findings?
2. Are additional sub-analyses or statistical measures needed (e.g., reporting of CIs, effect sizes, sensitivity analyses)?
3. Does the highlights section capture the main research finding or need improving? Please provide suggestions to authors on how to better capture the main research findings.

Discussion

1. Is the interpretation of results and study conclusions supported by the data and the study design?
2. Does the explanation of the generalizability of the findings and/or comparison with other studies require expanding? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the manuscript.
3. Have the authors clearly emphasized the limitations of their study/theory/methods/ argument?

Conclusion

13. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable?
14. Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Ethical Issues

1. Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
2. Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
3. Other ethical concerns: Has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor.

Note: The first five aspects (introduction - conclusion) are reported at the “for author and editor” form, while ethical issues are reported at the “for editor only” form.

 

Core questions for conceptual/review articles

1. Do the authors explain the reason for writing a review article in this field? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better justify their reasons for writing.
2. Does the review article provide a good overview of the development of the field while providing insights into the field's future development? Please list the historical developments and possible future developments that the author(s) should add or emphasize more.
3. Do authors adequately discuss the most relevant and recent advances in the field? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve their reference list to include the relevant topics and cover both historical and recent developments. 
4. Is the review reported in sufficient detail to allow for its replicability and/or reproducibility (e.g., search strategies disclosed, inclusion criteria and risk of bias assessment for individual studies stated, summary methods specified)? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the replicability/reproducibility of their review. 
5. If the manuscript employs statistical method (e.g., meta-analysis, meta-regressions) and its reporting (e.g., P-values, 95% CIs), is it appropriate and well described? Please clearly indicate whether the review requires additional peer review by a statistician. Provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, or statistical reporting. 
6. Does the review structure, flow or writing need improving (e.g., the addition of subheadings, shortening of text, reorganization of sections or moving details from one section to another, following PRISMA guidelines)? Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the review structure and flow. 
7. Does the highlights section capture the main research finding or need improving? Please provide suggestions to authors on how to better capture the main research findings.
8. Is violation to ethical issues detected? This includes plagiarism fraud and violation to confidentiality and ethical treatment of human subjects.

 Note: Items 1 to 7 are reported at the “for author and editor” form, while Item 8 is reported at the “for editor only” form.