EAEF

Abstracting and Indexing: Scopus; EI-Compendex
E-ISSN: 18818366
EAEF Review Process (For Reviewers)
Download files
Review result template
(Please use this format for reviewing)
Review_result_template.docx
Review_result_template.doc (for word 2004 or previous)

Your manuscript is submitted for publication through this web site. The AABEA editorial board checks the manuscript for proper format and conformance with "Review result template", acknowledges receipt and assigns a manuscript number. The editorial board selects 2 or more qualified reviewers. The manuscript is forwarded through the web site to each reviewer who is asked to confirm his or her willingness to perform the review in a timely manner (within three weeks). Reviewers download a file "Review result template" and a manuscript file (pdf) into their own PCs and are encouraged to use the file "Review result template" of MS Word for review results and to print the pdf file if necessary to make comments in the text or to suggest detailed modifications. Reviewers upload the file "Review result template" of review results and post the printed manuscript with comments and suggestions to the AABEA editorial board of CIAM, JSAM, or KSAM, if they are made.

Guidelines for Reviewers


(please download and upload the file "Review result template" to the web site):

1. The editorial board checks the manuscript for conformance with the style and format as specified in the "Review result template".
2. Check overall quality, scientific merit, presentation, quality of English, and spelling and grammar.
3. Return the review results to the editorial board with one of the following recommendations through uploading the file "Review result template":
- A) publish without change
- B) publish with minor improvements (give details)
- C) publish with major revisions (give details)
- D) reject

The editorial board will consider the recommendations of the reviewers, will consult with the Editor-in-Chief and will forward the comments anonymously to the author(s) along with a consensus recommendation. The author(s) will make appropriate revisions and resubmit the manuscript through the web site within two months.

When the editorial board is satisfied that the manuscript meets the AABEA quality standards, a recommendation to publish the manuscript will be made to the Editor-in-Chief.

Following approval of the Editor-in-Chief and receipt of documents on proof reading and on copyright form the corresponding author, the manuscript will be published in the EAEF. A footer will be added to the manuscript stating the volume number and the official name of the journal. The corresponding author will be sent an e-mail from the Editor-in-Chief stating that the manuscript has been published in the peer reviewed journal of the EAEF.

11 Nov.2011

Guidelines for the Reviewing of Manuscripts


Contents of the file is show below for your information.
For reviewers: Please download the word file (Review result template).

Review result

Manuscript Number:
Title:

Scientific Merit
A) Does the manuscript have the potential to expand the fundamental knowledge in its specific area?
B) Is the manuscript scientifically sound?
C) Does the manuscript reflect originality and ingenuity in its appropriate field?
D) Does the manuscript have relation with practical problems in its specific area?
E) Is the investigator(s) cognizant of past work?
F) Does the manuscript thoroughly evaluate all necessary avenues of the study?
G) Are the objectives clear and logical?
H) Are the methodologies, designs, and analytical techniques appropriate, adequate, and completely described?
I) Are the conclusions objective, significant, and sound based on the findings of the investigator?

Overall Quality and Content
A) Does the title depict the nature of the study?
B) Have appropriate keywords been selected?
C) Does the abstract adequately describe the study in a clear, concise manner?
D) Is the manuscript well written and organized?
E) Is the paper adequately referenced and the reference style consistent?
F) Are any tables, charts, figures, or other graphical representations used necessary, correctly used and analyzed, and easily interpreted by the reader?
G) Can any part of the manuscript be shortened or omitted without loss of scientific content?

Comments
(Please note any general strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript here, along with any other comments you might have. If necessary, you can send (upload as PDF) handwriting suggestions and comments on printed manuscript to the Editorial board.)
  page column(right / left) line comments
1        
2        
3        
4        
5        

Recommendations:
In my opinion, this manuscript is_______(Please select A, B, C or D).
A) Publishable without revision
B) Publishable with minor revisions
C) Publishable material, but needs major revisions.
D) Reject (give reasons)
Reasons (if D was selected)


Following answer and review's name will be removed before forwarding to authors

If you judge the manuscript is B or C, please answer the following question.
Do you need to check the revisions? _______(Please select Yes or No)

Reviewed by: ____________________
Date:______________

Please complete and upload this file through the web site (http://mama.agr.okayama-u.ac.jp/AABEA/reviewers/upload.html) within three weeks.