:::

Introduction

:::

Review Process

Paper types of Monumenta Taiwanica include research articles, theme articles, book reviews, and reports. All research articles and theme articles shall first be reviewed by the Editorial Committee of this Journal. The committee shall then invite two experts of relevant fields, three if necessary, for the second review. The editorial committee holds the final decision regarding which articles shall be approved. Book reviews and reports are reviewed by the editorial committee. Review process and principles of research articles and theme articles are as follows:

 

I. Review Process


A. First Review
 

1.    After receiving submissions for research articles and theme articles, the executive editor of the current issue shall recommend a member of the editorial committee as the reviewer of the first review. The reviewer shall look at the subject, format, and quality of the submissions and determine whether to send them to the second review.

2.    Submissions are rejected if they do not pass the first review.

 

B. Second Review

1.    Reviewer of the first review shall recommend at least two experts of relevant fields as reviewers for submissions passing the first review.

2.    Items reviewed in the second review include research subject, expression and structure, methodology and references, academic value and contribution, and Chinese and English abstracts.

3.    There are four types of second review opinions: (1) priority recommendation, (2) recommend after revisions, (3) review required after revisions, (4) not recommended.

 

C. Editorial Committee Review

1.    The editorial committee will discuss the results of the second review, take into considerations professional decisions of referees and the academic value of the submissions, and then decide which articles to publish. If referees have vast different opinions among themselves, a third reviewer shall be invited when necessary.

2.    Below are the decision-making principles of the editorial committee after receiving opinions of the two referees:

 

Decision-Making Principles

Second Referee

Priority Recommendation

Recommend after Revisions

Review Required after Revisions

Not Recommended

First Referee

Priority Recommendation

Priority Publication

Publish after Revisions

Review Required after Revisions

A Third Referee Required

Recommend after Revisions

Publish after Revisions

Publish after Revisions

Review Required after Revisions

A Third Referee Required

Review Required after Revisions

Review Required after Revisions

Review Required after Revisions

Review Required after Revisions

Rejected or Review Required after Revisions

Not Recommended

A Third Referee Required

A Third Referee Required

Rejected or Review Required after Revisions

Rejected

 

II. Revisions and Withdrawals

1.    Authors whose articles are rated as “priority publication” and “publish after revisions” shall send back the revised articles according to review opinions and adjust the format according to the requirements of the Journal.

2.    Authors whose articles are rated as “review required after revisions” shall send back the revised articles and “author’s reply” before the deadline. Articles that fail to be sent back within the deadline will be viewed as rejected. If revisions cannot be finished within the deadline, applications can be made and deadlines can be extended when approved by the editorial committee.

3.    Articles reviewed as “rejected” by the editorial committee shall be rejected.

4.    In principle, articles entering the second review shall not be withdrawn unless special reasons occur. The editor and the executive editor shall determine whether or not to accept the withdrawal request. The Journal will no longer accept submissions of the same author who withdraws submissions for no special reasons or without consent.

 

III. Review Principles

1.    The Journal adopts peer review mechanism and invites experts and scholars of relevant fields as reviewers. The Journal will also consider the relationships or connections between authors and referees and avoid conflicts of interest to ensure objectivity. Book reviews and reports are reviewed by the editorial committee.

2.    The Journal adopts double-blind review process. The editorial committee should not disclose information of either authors or reviewers to the other side, nor should they provide unnecessary information or information that may affect the fairness of the review process.

3.    In order to ensure that the review process remains just and professional, the editor and the executive editor should not submit articles to the Journal during their term. If other members of the editorial committee submit their articles to the Journal, they should not be involved in decisions about the papers they have submitted.

cron web_use_log