For reviewers

1. Double-blind peer review

The JKPA adopts a double-blind review, which means that the reviewers and authors cannot identify each other’s information. Throughout the review process, author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and handled to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s).

2. Role of reviewers

■ Manuscript review

(1) Reviewers should refuse to review a paper when they have a concern that the fairness of the review may be impaired due to a conflict of interest with the paper author(s) or paper contents.

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

(3) Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as the appropriateness of the subject, review process of existing research, logical flow of the manuscript, appropriateness of the volume, appropriateness of the table, figure, and map format, academic contribution, and the details pointed out. Reviewers should conduct their assessment in a timely and objective manner, avoiding any personal or unsupported criticisms. The review decision criteria are as follows: publish as it is, publish after revision, re-review after revision, and publication rejected.

(4) Reviewers must specifically state the requirements for revision in the case of decisions of publish after revision and re-review after revision. In the case of the final decision on rejection for publication, the basis for rejection should be provided.

(5) The Board collectively considers the individual review results of the three reviewers and takes a decision on “publish as it is, publish after revision, re-review after revision and publication rejected” based on the following criteria. 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.

(6) 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.

(7) Criteria for review decision

① Publish as it is: Decision in the case where the manuscript 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 about the same)

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.

④ Publication rejected: Decision in the case where it is deemed impossible to revise and improve the manuscript due to a critical problem in the content and methodology of the manuscript.

3. How to become a reviewer

(1) The Editorial Board should invite three reviewers who can evaluate the content of the paper professionally and request them to review the paper. In principle, reviewers who may harm the fairness of review should be excluded from appointment: those working in the same department of the company or school as the paper author(s), and those related to the conflict of interest information provided by the corresponding author.

(2) If a reviewer who has received a request believes that it is difficult to conduct a fair review due to a conflict of interest with the paper, he/she should immediately notify the Editorial Board and submit his/her reason for rejecting the review request.

4. How to write review comments

After entering the e-submission system with a valid login ID and password, please write review comments in the manuscript review window of that system or attach a reviewed content file in the PDF, Hangul, or MS Word (.docx) file format. It is not necessary to comment on a specific style and format, but just concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

(1) Comment to authors

Please make a specific comment if the peer review opinion may increase the quality of the manuscript or further research by author.

(2) Comment to editor

Both the strength and limitations of the manuscript should be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here including a special opinion to the editor.

5. Ethical guideline for reviewers

(1) The Board should make a fair selection of reviewers for submitted manuscripts, and carefully select reviewers who can evaluate and review the manuscript in the most appropriate and professional manner for the manuscript.

(2) A review process of any submitted manuscript to the Journal should performed as a double-blind review. No information about the reviewers will be disclosed, even after the review is completed.

(3) Reviewers should refuse to review a paper when they have a concern that the fairness of the review may be impaired because of a conflict of interest with the authors or paper contents. Conflict of interests include but are not limited to 1) when the reviewer is a competitor, 2) when the reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s), and 3) when the reviewer may profit financially from the work.

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

(5) Any information acquired during the review process is confidential. Reviewers should not use any material or data originating from the manuscript in review. The reviewer may use open data of the manuscript after publication.

6. Post-review work by the editorial office

The editorial office may analyze review opinions and decisions without identifying the reviewer.

7. Certificate of review

Reviewers may request a certificate of review to the editor of JKPA.

8. Mass media and press release

Once the editor of JKPA identifies an article suitable for a press release, the editorial office works with the author(s) to agree to the content and embargo date of the press release. The first draft of the press release can be written either by the author of the article or by someone else that the editor appoints. The final version has to be agreed between the editor and the author. The author should be willing to accept interview requests from mass media. The author or editor may initiate discussion to pre-plan the press release.