Review Process

1. Editorial Committee

(1) JICAS editorial committee consists of associate editors and the number of the member is twelve or less.

(2) The editorial committee members shall be appointed by the editor-in-chief.

(3) Diversity of research areas and geographical locations should be considered for committee member appointment.

(4) The editor-in-chief is responsible for all the editing-related works and convenes meetings.

(5) The term in office of chair shall be two years from the day of appointment, and it can be extended.

(6) The term in office of members shall be two years from the day of appointment, and it can be extended.

2. The role of editorial committee

(1) To establish and revise all editorial guidelines.

(2) To decide the date of publication and the deadline for manuscripts.

(3) To exclude the unqualified manuscript to be reviewed.

(4) To select the reviewers.

(5) To make a final decision on the reviewed manuscript.

(6) To deal with other editorial issues.

3. Selecting reviewers

(1) Reviewers can be recommended in different fields, and will be selected by associate editors.

(2) Associate editors should select external reviewers. Reviewers who belong to the same affiliation as author(s) will be excluded in selection.

(3) Associate editors should consider research area and the ability to understand the research ethics in order to select reviewers.

(4) Associate editors could consult the specialist data base (IDEC participating professors) owned by the Editorial team.

(5) The number of the reviewers are at least two people for a manuscript.

(6) Associate editors may review the manuscripts.

4. Review policy

(1) Reviewers should be chosen for their high qualifications and objectivity regarding a particular article.

(2) Reviews should be prompt and thorough.

(3) Anonymity of reviewers of a given article shall be preserved to the extent possible, unless the reviewer and editor agree to disclosure.

(4) Information contained in an article under review is confidential and shall not be shared with others, nor shall reviewers use non-public information contained in an article to advance their own research or financial interests.

5. Review criteria

(1) Unlike other journals, reviewers mainly evaluate the chip design methodology rather than novel ideas.

(2) Level of chip design skills, logic of contents, readability should be comprehensively reviewed.

(3) Manuscripts should be reviewed within a maximum of three weeks (21 days) from the date of invitation letter from associate editor.

6. Review result

(1) Reviewers shall give opinions on the manuscript and associate editor shall make a decision of publication.

(2) The decision shall be “Accept”, “Revision required”, “Revision required with re-review” or “Reject”.

(3) In case of “Accept”, the manuscript would be published without revision.

(4) In case of “Revision required” and “Revision required with re-review”, reviewer’s comments will be sent to author for the revision.

(5) In case of “Revision required”, associate editor shall verify the improvement of manuscript and make a decision of publication.

(6) In case of “Revision required with re-review”, associate editor shall verify the revised manuscript and reviewers shall review the revised manuscript again.

(7) In case of “Reject”, associate editor shall notify the author the result immediately.

7. Appeal of editorial decisions

(1) Authors whose manuscript decided not to be published may appeal to the editorial committee’s decisions.

(2) An appeal of an editorial decision must be submitted within five days from the date of notification of the result.

(3) Upon the receipt of appeal, the editor-in-chief must convene an editorial meeting, notify the result to the author, and take actions on the decision.

(4) If the editorial committee admits that the author’s appeal is reasonable, the manuscript can be reviewed by other reviewers only once.

8. Editorial Oversight and Complaints

(1) JICAS Editorial team ensures that manuscripts adhere to high quality research and ethical standards and prevents the publication of any manuscripts that are below editorial standards.

(2) Editors and Reviewers should have the necessary expertise to judge the manuscript’s quality and validity. At any stage before publication, if a manuscript does not meet our editorial criteria and standards for publication, or if peer-review or research integrity concerns are raised by any review participant, the editorial committee will investigate these concerns, regardless of peer review or acceptance stage.

(3) As part of editorial oversight procedures, all review process will be monitored and may result in editors and reviewers being revoked from assignments and editorial board membership.

(4) Complaints about our processes or about publication ethics will in the first instance be handled by the Editor responsible for the journal. If the Editor is the subject of the complaint, please approach the editorial team by email to

(5) For complaints about processes, such as time taken for review, the Editor will review and respond to the complainant's concerns. This feedback will be provided to relevant stakeholders to guide improvements to processes and procedures.

(6) For complaints about publication ethics or scientific content, the Editor will follow guidelines published by the Research Publication Ethics. The Editor may request advice from JICAS editorial team. The Editor then decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. 

(7) If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, it will be escalated to the journal's editorial team for investigation. If no publishing contact is identified send the query to


(1) Articles, not specified in the Guidelines, shall follow the decision of the editorial committee.

(2) The review process policy can be revised by the editorial committee.

(3) The review process policy takes effect from April 30, 2018, revised January 1, 2023.