Reviewers



Article 1 (Paper Review)

① Reviewers shall refuse to review a paper when they have a concern that fairness of review may be impaired due to a conflict of interest with the paper contributors or paper contents.

② When reviewers enter their review opinion and decision into the online system, they shall state that there was no conflict of interest throughout their review process and declare that they performed the review fairly.

③ Reviewers shall evaluate the paper, point out specific details, and decide on whether to publish the paper as-is, publish it after revision, review it again after revision, or reject the publication according to criteria such as appropriateness of topic, review of existing studies, logic of the paper, appropriateness of the paper length, appropriateness of tables, figures, map formats, and academic contributions.

④ When a reviewer decides on “publish after revision” or “review again after revision,” he/she shall specify the details of the request for revision; when he/she decides on “reject to publish,” he/she shall provide the grounds for such decision.

 

◎ 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