|Browse Archives||About the Journal||For Contributors||e-Submission|
You are not permitted to access the full text of articles.
If you have any questions about permissions,
please contact the Society.
회원님은 논문 이용 권한이 없습니다.
권한 관련 문의는 학회로 부탁 드립니다.
Article 1 (Selection of reviewers)
① The Board selects three reviewers who can most professionally evaluate the contents of the submitted manuscripts, and requests the review.
② If the requested reviewer refuses the review or does not submit the review result within 21 days, the editor in chief can replace the reviewer.
③ A predetermined review fee is paid to the reviewer.
Article 2 (Manuscript review)
① The reviewer evaluates the manuscript based on criteria such as the appropriateness of the subject, the review process of the existing research, the logical flow of the manuscript, the appropriateness of the volume, the appropriateness of the table, figure, and map format, and the academic contribution and points out the details. The review decision criteria is as follows: publish as it is, publish after revision, re-review after revision and publication rejected.
② The reviewer must specifically state the requirements for revision in case of decisions of publish after revision and re-review after revision and in case of the decision of publication rejected, the basis for rejection should be provided.
③ The Board collectively takes into account the individual review results of the three reviewers and makes the decision on the “publish as it is, publish after revision, re-review after revision and publication rejected” based on the following criteria.
However, if two reviewers have presented their opinions of “publish as it is or publish after revision” and if two reviewers have presented their individual opinions of “publication rejected”, the review results based on the review criteria table can be notified to the manuscript author regardless of the individual review result of the third reviewer.
④ In the case of a decision of “publish after revision”, the reviewer may ask the Board to check and confirm that the revision items are properly implemented.
◎ Criteria for review decision
① Publish as it is: Decision in the case where the article can be published in the journal as it is.
② Publish after revision: Decision in the case where the manuscript can be published in the Journal after minor revisions without additional review procedures (However, if it is necessary to check the results of the revision before publication by the Board for the decisions corresponding to “Publish after revision”, the reviewer can inform the Board on the matter)
③ Re-review after revision: Decision in the case where there is a problem in the content and methodology of the manuscript, but it can be revised and the reviewer must review again to confirm the result of the revision implementation
④ Publication rejected: Decision in the case where it is deemed impossible to revise and improve due to a critical problem in the content and methodology of the manuscript