1. Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief checks whether a manuscript submitted online fulfills the submission guidelines; if it does, Associate Editors are appointed. The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision based on the reviewers’ comments collected by Associate Editor. If one or more reviewers have recommended that the submission be rejected, an additional reviewer can be appointed, or the submission can be rejected.

2. Associate Editor

The Associate Editor appoints two reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field, making a total of three reviewers. The Associate Editors will make the final decision by collecting the reviewers' recommendations and forwarding them to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief checks whether a manuscript submitted online fulfills the submission guidelines; if it does, Associate Editors are appointed.

3. Reviewer

The reviewers choose an appropriate course of action decision from the following list of options: ① Accept, ② Minor revisions, ③ Major revisions, ④ Reject. Decisions must reflect the "submission guidelines" and "guidelines for reviewers."

The role of the reviewer:
The key role of a reviewer to help the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor decide whether to publish a manuscript by commenting on its academic value. Thus, reviewers must read the paper thoroughly and give clear comments. The reviewer should avoid questioning answers that are already present in the manuscript, or criticizing insignificant content. If the manuscript presents a new concept or topic but needs major revisions, the reviewer should give detailed comments to assist with publication. When rejecting a submission, treat authors with courtesy.

4. Editor-in-Chief

The Associate Editors will make the final decision by collecting the reviewers' recommendations and forwarding them to the Editor-in-Chief. If one or more reviewers have recommended that the submission be rejected, an additional reviewer can be appointed, or the submission can be rejected.

5. Editorial Committee

The Editorial Committee reviews the results and decides whether or not to publish the article. If the Editorial Committee decides to accept the manuscript, it will be published after an English editing and correction process.—이것은 Editor-in-Cheief의 책무와 중복

All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed in the same way as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the decision process. Editors will not handle their own manuscripts although they are commissioned ones.

Table of review guideline
To ensure that reviews are objective, online review guidelines are used to assess various elements, including the title, introduction, methods, results, discussion, organization, abstract, and references.

① The topic of the manuscript and/or the age of the participants are appropriate for the field of geriatrics.
② The title represents the content of the paper.
③ The introduction, methods, and results are presented in the right order.
④ The method is described in sufficient detail.
⑤ Eligibility and exclusion criteria are clearly stated.
⑥ The research objective and results are coherent.
⑦ The table and results are coherent.
⑧ An appropriate statistical method is used.
⑨ The order of results corresponds to the discussion.
⑩ The conclusion can be deduced from the research results (there is no jumping to conclusions).
⑪ The research limitations are noted.
⑫ Any there any ethical problems?
⑬ Is there unnecessary repetition (in particular, repetition in the introduction and discussion, or discussion and results)?
⑭ Is the length of the manuscript appropriate?

Consider Refer to other internationally used guidelines such as CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials), QUORUM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses), and STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) for different research designs.

Basic principles
Reviewers should approach the task of reviewing with sincerity, and submit their reviews in a timely fashion. If the reviewer believes that he or she is not the appropriate person to review a particular article, he or she must immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Fairness
A reviewer should treat all authors fairly. If there is any conflict of interest, immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Confidentiality
Except when asking for advice in relation to a review, the manuscript and its content should not be disclosed to a third party. The manuscript cannot be cited before publication. The review process is double blind, which means that a reviewer cannot contact the author. If a reviewer believes that contact with the author is necessary, then he or she should notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.