① The editing committee including the chief editor shall appoint an editor suitable for the field of the accepted paper as a responsible editor.

② The responsible editor shall assign three review members and manage their review process.

① The editing member shall return the review outcomes within 21 days in the case of the first review and within 14 days in the case of the second review. Regarding an urgent review, the review outcomes shall be returned within 14 days in the case of the first review and within 7 days in the case of the second review.

② In case an reviewer does not submit his or her review opinion within 21 days after being appointed as a reviewer, the chief editor shall urge the examiner to submit the review opinion, and in case the reviewer does not submit the review opinion within 7 days after the first round of urging, the chief editor may dismiss the reviewer. In the case of an urgent review, the chief editor shall urge the reviewer, when the reviewer did not submit his or her review after being appointed as a reviewer, and in the case the reviewer does not submit the review opinion within four days, the chief editor may dismiss the reviewer.

③ The dismissed reviewer promptly shall destroy any review data such as assigned papers and their associated files.

① The reviewer shall submit his or her review along with a review outcome, which can be one of “Accept as is”, “Accept after revision”, “Re-review after revision”, and “Reject”, to this Society.

② When it is recognized that the paper should be revised, the reviewer shall specify in detail the content to be revised.

③ In case the thesis is judged to be “Reject”, the reviewer should specify in detail the reason in his or her opinion on paper review.

④ When the paper review is finished, the reviewer shall destroy the review data such as the paper and files of them.

① Based on the review results by all reviewers, the responsible editor shall judge the paper in his or her opinion on the review outcome: “Accept as is”, “Accept after revision”, “Re-review after revision”, and “Reject”.

② When the judgment by the responsible editor is “Accept after revision”, revision of the paper and response to the review opinion shall be requested, the revised paper and response shall be submitted, and they shall be reviewed by the responsible editor.

③ When the responsible editor judges that the paper should be “Re-review after revision”, revision of the paper and response to the review opinion shall be requested to the author. The revised paper and response shall be submitted to and reviewed by the reviewers who demanded revision and the responsible editor.

④ In case that the request for the paper was made to the author and he or she does not submit the revised paper within one month without special reasons, the author is regarded to have given up submitting his or her paper.

① In case the opinion by the responsible editor is “Accept as it is” or “Reject”, it shall be forwarded to the editing committee.

② The editing committee shall determine whether to accept or reject the paper or not based on the opinion by the responsible editor.

③ After determining whether to accept it or not, the editing committee shall notify the result to the author.