1. Peer-Review Model · 同行評審模式

Research articles submitted to the journal are normally evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process. Under this system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

投稿本刊之研究論文原則上採用雙向匿名同行評審制度。在此制度下，作者身分不向審查人公開，審查人身分亦不向作者公開。

The purpose of double-blind review is to reduce the potential influence of institutional reputation, academic rank, nationality, personal relationships, gender, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

雙向匿名評審旨在減少機構聲望、學術職位、國籍、私人關係、性別或其他與稿件學術品質無關因素可能造成之影響。

2. Submission and Administrative Check · 投稿與行政檢查

After submission, the editorial office examines the manuscript to determine whether all required files, author information, declarations, abstracts, keywords, references, tables, figures, and supplementary materials have been provided.

稿件提交後，編輯部將檢查所需文件、作者資料、相關聲明、摘要、關鍵詞、參考文獻、表格、圖片及補充材料是否完整。

Manuscripts that are technically incomplete or do not follow the journal’s author guidelines may be returned to the corresponding author for correction before editorial evaluation begins.

技術資料不完整或未遵循本刊作者指南之稿件，可能在進入正式編輯評估前退回通訊作者修改。

3. Preliminary Editorial Screening · 編輯初審

Each manuscript is initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. The preliminary assessment considers whether the submission:

每篇稿件首先由主編或指定編輯進行初步審查。初審主要確認稿件是否：

• Falls within the journal’s aims and scope · 符合本刊宗旨與研究範圍
• Presents a clear and relevant research problem · 提出明確且具有相關性之研究問題
• Demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly value · 具有充分原創性與學術價值
• Uses an appropriate theoretical or methodological approach · 採用適切之理論或研究方法
• Meets basic academic and linguistic standards · 符合基本學術及語言標準
• Contains appropriate citations and documentation · 具有適當引文與文獻資料
• Complies with publication and research ethics · 符合出版及研究倫理
• Is suitable for external peer review · 適合送交外部同行評審

A manuscript may be declined at the preliminary stage if it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, contains serious methodological or ethical problems, is inadequately prepared, or does not meet the journal’s academic standards.

如稿件超出本刊範圍、缺乏充分原創性、存在嚴重方法或倫理問題、準備不完整，或未達本刊學術標準，編輯部得於初審階段直接退稿。

4. Similarity and Integrity Screening · 相似度與學術誠信檢查

Manuscripts may be examined with similarity-detection software before or during peer review. The journal does not determine plagiarism solely on the basis of a numerical similarity percentage.

稿件可於同行評審前或評審期間使用文字相似度檢測系統進行檢查。本刊不會僅依據相似度百分比判定是否構成抄襲。

Editors evaluate the source, nature, extent, and context of textual overlap. Properly cited quotations, standard terminology, methodological expressions, and reference lists are distinguished from unattributed copying or inappropriate duplication.

編輯將評估文字重疊之來源、性質、程度及語境，並區分適當引用、標準術語、方法描述及參考文獻，與未經引註之複製或不當重複使用。

5. Selection of Reviewers · 審查人遴選

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise, research experience, publication record, independence, availability, and ability to provide a fair and constructive evaluation.

審查人之遴選以其專業領域、研究經驗、出版紀錄、獨立性、時間安排及提供公正且具建設性評估之能力為依據。

Reviewers should not have a close personal, professional, institutional, supervisory, or collaborative relationship with the authors that could compromise or appear to compromise impartiality.

審查人不應與作者存在可能影響或被合理認為可能影響公正性之密切私人、專業、機構、指導或合作關係。

The journal normally seeks evaluations from at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited where reports conflict substantially or additional expertise is required.

本刊通常邀請至少兩位獨立審查人進行評估。如審查意見存在重大分歧，或稿件需要其他專業領域之判斷，得邀請額外審查人。

6. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria · 審查評估標準

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following principal criteria:

審查人應依據以下主要標準評估稿件：

• Originality · 原創性： Whether the manuscript offers a new argument, interpretation, source, method, or scholarly perspective. 稿件是否提出新論點、新詮釋、新資料、新方法或新學術觀點。
• Scholarly significance · 學術重要性： Whether the study makes a meaningful contribution to its field. 研究是否對其學術領域作出有意義之貢獻。
• Research problem · 研究問題： Whether the objectives and research questions are clearly formulated. 研究目的及問題是否清楚界定。
• Literature engagement · 文獻掌握： Whether the manuscript engages critically with relevant and appropriate scholarship. 稿件是否批判性地運用相關且適切之研究文獻。
• Theory and methodology · 理論與方法： Whether the theoretical framework and research method are appropriate and adequately explained. 理論架構及研究方法是否適切且說明充分。
• Evidence and analysis · 證據與分析： Whether the conclusions are supported by appropriate evidence and sound analysis. 結論是否建立於適當證據及合理分析之上。
• Argumentation · 論證： Whether the argument is logical, coherent, balanced, and persuasive. 論證是否合乎邏輯、連貫、平衡且具說服力。
• Structure and clarity · 結構與清晰度： Whether the manuscript is well organized and clearly written. 稿件是否結構完整且表達清楚。
• Ethical compliance · 倫理合規： Whether the research and presentation comply with applicable ethical standards. 研究及成果呈現是否符合相關倫理標準。
• References · 參考文獻： Whether citations are relevant, accurate, balanced, and sufficiently complete. 引用是否相關、準確、平衡且充分完整。

7. Responsibilities of Reviewers · 審查人責任

Reviewers should provide an objective, respectful, evidence-based, and constructive assessment. Personal criticism, insulting language, discriminatory comments, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

審查人應提供客觀、尊重、有證據支持且具建設性之評估。人身批評、侮辱性語言、歧視性評論及缺乏依據之指控均不被接受。

Reviewers should identify important strengths and weaknesses, explain the basis of their recommendations, and distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions.

審查人應指出稿件之重要優點與不足，說明其建議之理由，並區分必要修改與選擇性建議。

A reviewer who lacks the necessary expertise or cannot complete the review within the agreed period should notify the editorial office promptly.

審查人如缺乏必要專業能力，或無法於約定期間完成評審，應立即通知編輯部。

8. Confidentiality of Peer Review · 同行評審之保密

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, quote, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content without written authorization from the editorial office.

評審中之稿件屬於保密文件。未經編輯部書面授權，審查人不得分享、複製、散布、引用、討論或使用稿件中尚未出版之內容。

Reviewers must not use information obtained through peer review for personal research, professional advancement, financial benefit, or the disadvantage of the authors or other persons.

審查人不得將評審過程中取得之資訊用於個人研究、職業發展、財務利益，或對作者及其他人士造成不利影響。

9. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review · 同行評審之利益衝突

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

審查人在接受評審任務前，必須揭露任何實際、潛在或可能被認為存在之利益衝突。

A conflict may arise from:

利益衝突可能源自：

• Recent collaboration with an author · 近期與作者之合作關係
• Employment at the same institution · 任職於相同機構
• Supervisory or student relationships · 指導教師或學生關係
• Close personal or family relationships · 密切私人或家庭關係
• Direct academic competition · 直接學術競爭關係
• Financial or professional interests · 財務或專業利益
• Strong personal hostility or advocacy · 強烈私人敵意或偏袒立場

Where impartial assessment cannot reasonably be ensured, the reviewer must decline the invitation.
如無法合理確保公正評估，審查人必須拒絕評審邀請。

10. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review · 同行評審中之人工智慧使用

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, tables, figures, supplementary materials, author responses, or confidential editorial correspondence to public generative artificial intelligence systems.

審查人不得將投稿稿件、表格、圖片、補充材料、作者回覆或機密編輯通信上傳至公開之生成式人工智慧系統。

Uploading a confidential manuscript to an external AI service may expose unpublished research, personal information, copyrighted material, and confidential editorial data to unauthorized storage, processing, or reuse.

將保密稿件上傳至外部人工智慧服務，可能使未出版研究、個人資料、受著作權保護之內容及機密編輯資料遭到未經授權之保存、處理或再利用。

Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer’s own reading, subject expertise, critical analysis, or professional judgment. Review reports must represent the reviewer’s independent evaluation.

人工智慧不得取代審查人本身之閱讀、專業知識、批判性分析或專業判斷。評審報告必須反映審查人之獨立評估。

Reviewers are fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, relevance, confidentiality, and integrity of every statement contained in their reports.

審查人須對評審報告中所有陳述之準確性、公平性、相關性、保密性及完整性承擔全部責任。

11. Reviewer Recommendations · 審查建議

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may normally recommend one of the following outcomes:

審查人完成稿件評估後，通常可提出以下建議：

• Accept · 接受： The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision. 稿件無須實質修改，可進入出版程序。
• Minor Revision · 小幅修改： The manuscript is academically sound but requires limited clarification, correction, or improvement. 稿件在學術上基本成立，但須進行有限之澄清、修正或改善。
• Major Revision · 大幅修改： The manuscript has potential but requires substantial theoretical, methodological, analytical, structural, or documentary revision. 稿件具有潛力，但須在理論、方法、分析、結構或文獻方面進行重大修改。
• Revise and Resubmit · 修改後重新投稿： The manuscript requires fundamental redevelopment and may undergo a new round of review. 稿件須進行根本性重整，修改後可重新投稿並接受新一輪評審。
• Reject · 退稿： The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scholarly requirements or contains problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision. 稿件未達本刊學術要求，或存在無法透過合理修改解決之問題。

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor after considering the reports, the manuscript, and the journal’s editorial standards.
審查人之建議屬於專業諮詢意見。最終決定由主編或責任編輯在綜合考量審查報告、稿件內容及本刊編輯標準後作出。

12. Conflicting Reviewer Reports · 審查意見分歧

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor evaluates the reasoning, evidence, and relevance of each report rather than deciding solely by numerical majority.

如審查建議存在重大分歧，編輯將評估每份報告之理由、證據及相關性，而非僅依多數意見作出決定。

The editor may seek clarification from a reviewer, invite an additional independent reviewer, request a methodological assessment, or make an editorial decision based on the available evidence.

編輯得要求審查人進一步說明、邀請額外獨立審查人、尋求方法學評估，或依現有證據作出編輯決定。

13. Editorial Decision · 編輯決定

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s originality, scholarly quality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, reviewer reports, relevance to the journal, and the authors’ response to requested revisions.

編輯決定將依據稿件之原創性、學術品質、方法嚴謹性、倫理合規、審查報告、與本刊之相關性，以及作者對修改要求之回應作出。

Acceptance is not guaranteed by favourable reviewer recommendations alone. Likewise, a critical report does not automatically result in rejection if the editor determines that the concerns can be addressed appropriately.

僅有正面審查建議並不保證稿件必然錄用。同樣，如編輯認為批評意見可透過適當修改解決，負面審查報告亦不必然導致退稿。

14. Revision by Authors · 作者修改

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should respond carefully to every editorial and reviewer comment and submit a point-by-point response explaining how each issue was addressed.

獲邀修改稿件之作者應仔細回應每項編輯及審查意見，並提交逐點回覆文件，說明各項問題之處理方式。

All changes should be clearly identifiable in the revised manuscript. Where an author does not adopt a recommendation, a respectful and academically reasoned explanation should be provided.

修訂稿中之變更應清楚標示。如作者未採納某項建議，應提供尊重且具有學術依據之說明。

A revision request does not constitute acceptance. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the required changes.
修改要求並不等同於錄用。依所需修改之程度與性質，修訂稿可能重新送交原審查人，或由編輯進行評估。

15. Review of Revised Manuscripts · 修訂稿之重新評估

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the responsible editor. Major revisions are normally returned to one or more reviewers to determine whether the principal concerns have been resolved.

小幅修改可由責任編輯直接評估。大幅修改之稿件通常將重新送交一位或多位審查人，以確認主要問題是否已獲解決。

Further revisions may be requested where the response remains incomplete or where new concerns arise from the revised manuscript.
如作者回應仍不完整，或修訂稿產生新的重要問題，編輯得要求作者進行進一步修改。

16. Editorial Board Submissions · 編輯委員投稿

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal are subject to the same academic and ethical standards as all other submissions.

編輯、編輯委員或與本刊關係密切之人士所提交之稿件，適用與其他投稿相同之學術及倫理標準。

The submitting editor or board member must not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer identities, influence the review process, or make the publication decision.

投稿之編輯或委員不得參與審查人遴選、接觸審查人保密身分、影響評審程序或作出出版決定。

17. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions · 編輯決定申訴

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial factual misunderstanding, a procedural irregularity, or a demonstrably inappropriate review.

作者如認為編輯決定源於重大事實誤解、程序不當或可明確證明之不適當評審，可提出附具理由之申訴。

An appeal must address specific points in the decision or reviewer reports and must provide relevant scholarly evidence. General disagreement with the decision is not sufficient.

申訴必須針對編輯決定或審查報告中之具體事項，並提供相關學術證據。僅表示不同意決定並不足以構成申訴理由。

Appeals are considered by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision whenever reasonably possible. The outcome of the appeal represents the journal’s final editorial decision.
在合理可行情況下，申訴將由未直接參與原決定之編輯處理。申訴結果為本刊之最終編輯決定。

18. Ethical Concerns During Review · 評審期間之倫理問題

If a reviewer or editor identifies possible plagiarism, fabricated evidence, falsified data, undisclosed duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, unethical research, or improper AI use, the review process may be suspended while the matter is examined.

如審查人或編輯發現可能存在抄襲、證據捏造、資料竄改、未揭露之重複出版、不當作者資格、引文操縱、不符合倫理之研究或人工智慧之不當使用，同行評審程序得暫時中止，以進行調查。

Authors may be asked to provide original data, research notes, source documents, ethical approvals, consent records, authorship explanations, or other supporting evidence.

編輯部得要求作者提供原始資料、研究筆記、來源文件、倫理核准、同意紀錄、作者資格說明或其他支持證據。

19. Review Timeline · 評審時程

The journal seeks to complete editorial screening and peer review within a reasonable period. However, the duration may vary according to the subject, availability of qualified reviewers, complexity of the manuscript, and number of revision rounds.

本刊致力於在合理期間內完成編輯初審及同行評審。然而，實際所需時間可能因研究主題、合格審查人之可用性、稿件複雜程度及修改輪次而有所不同。

Authors should not interpret the duration of review as an indication of likely acceptance or rejection.
作者不應將評審時間長短視為稿件可能獲得接受或退稿之指標。

20. Final Publication Approval · 最終出版核准

A manuscript is considered accepted only after the corresponding author receives a formal written acceptance decision from the editorial office.

僅在通訊作者收到編輯部正式書面錄用通知後，稿件方被視為正式接受。

Accepted manuscripts remain subject to editorial checking, language editing, reference verification, ethical review where necessary, formatting, and author proof approval before publication.

錄用稿件在出版前仍須完成編輯檢查、語言校訂、參考文獻核對、必要之倫理審查、格式編排及作者校樣確認。