Review Policy

KODISA Journals have adopted a double blind reviewing policy, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Please remove all identifying features from the main document itself, ensuring that Authors' identity is not revealed. However, this does not preclude Authors from citing their own works. However, Authors must cite their works in a manner that does not make explicit their identity.
Acceptable: "Lee (2013) has indicated that . . ."
Acceptable: "Some scholars have indicated that . . . (e.g., Lee, 2013; Youn &Lee, 2018)"

KODISA Journals operate a double blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final. 

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW
KODISA Journals use a double-blind review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.  To facilitate this, please include the following separately:
Title page (with author details): This should include the title, authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgements and any Declaration of Interest statement, and a complete address for the corresponding author including an e-mail address.
Main document (without author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables and any acknowledgements) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors' names or affiliations.

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

• Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status or previous publication history.
• Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
• Bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity.The reviewers of KODISA Journals exemplify best practices in a given review situation.

THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 8 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between KODISA Journals. See below.

1. Submission of Paper
   The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. For Korean contributors, this is usually via an online system such as JAMS or ACOMS.For international scholars/contributors, KODISA Journals accept submissions by email, which is indicated on the submission information.
   
   2. Editorial Office Assessment
   The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
   
   3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
   The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting.If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
   
   4. Invitation to Reviewers
   The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 3, but there is some variation between journals.
   
   5. Review is Conducted
   The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
   
   6. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
   The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
   
   7. The Decision is Communicated
   The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
   
   8. Rejection or Revision 
    If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief may include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.   

            9. Accepted Articles: Two Stages of Approval Process for Publication

            The approval process for manuscripts involves two stages: initial approval (Acceptance  from the ACOM+ system) followed by final             approval (Final EIC Decision). The final approval signifies the EIC's ultimate determination of whether the manuscript aligns with the             monthly issue criteria of JEMM. It is important to note that initial approval does not guarantee publication, as the final approval             process assesses whether the manuscript conforms to the Aim and Scope of JEMM. Manuscripts deemed incompatible with these             criteria during the final approval stage may be ineligible for publication.

            Please hold the payment for the publication until you receive the notification of publication from the Editorial Team. Advance payment does             not give any credit toward EIC's final decision for publication. 

            The proof of payment for publication and subscription fees must be emailed to the Editorial Team. It is particularly noted that authors             who have outstanding payments related to KODISA, such as publication or conference registration fees, may not have their             manuscripts published until payment is confirmed, without separate notification.

            Manuscripts whose publication has been determined by the Final EIC Decision will receive a notification of publication (Manuscript             Proof) via email from the Editorial Team. Following the instructions in this email, manuscripts that have paid the publication and             subscription fees will be sequentially assigned to the publication. 

COPE ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS
KODISA Journals provide membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as an option for all of its journal editors. COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, to which Editors and their editorial boards can refer for guidance. Read the COPE guidelines below or visit their website to download the PDF.
Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process, but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals have an obligation to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review. COPE has heard cases from its members related to peer review issues and bases these guidelines, in part, on the collective experience and wisdom of the COPE Forum participants. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.
Peer review, for the purposes of these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. Reviews of other materials such as preprints, grants, books, conference proceeding submissions, registered reports (preregistered protocols), or data will have a similar underlying ethical framework, but the process will vary depending on the source material and the type of review requested. The model of peer review will also influence elements of the process.

FINAL CHECK-LIST BEFORE SUBMISSION
Please ensure that:

• Manuscript has been 'spell checked' and 'grammar checked'
• Note that submitted manuscripts will not go through language-focused copy editing with the journal prior to or after acceptance; language-focused copy editing is the responsibility of the authors prior to submission
• Please prepare the manuscript for blind review; whenever possible, please use author names and references for self-citations but make sure that you use third person to discuss the work (see “Review Policy”above)
• All references mentioned in the Reference List are cited in the text, and vice versa
• Permission has been obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Internet)
• A competing interests statement is provided, even if the authors have no competing interests to declare
• Journal policies detailed in this guide have been reviewed\

Submission Declaration
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere including electronically in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright-holder. In instances where authors prepare multiple submissions using the same dataset or sue partially overlapping variables in two or more articles, this needs to be declared upfront in the letter to the editor. Masked reference(s) to previous studies based on the same dataset need to be included in the manuscript itself so the reader can understand the novelty of new study in relation to the previous articles. Please consult the APA-manual on piecemeal publications. In cases where the manuscript is part of a larger project (e.g., prospective longitudinal study, an intervention study with numerous arms, etc.) in which other partly overlapping publications already exist, or are planned in parallel to the submitted manuscript, need to be declared in the accompanying letter to the Editor-in-Chief. Authors are asked to be upfront declaring such manuscripts. A manuscript may be returned if the degree of overlap is found to be too large.

KODISA Journals are committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. The Similarity Check process can be broadly employed by use of CrossCheck software, although these steps can vary slightly between KODISA Journals.
For example, per JAFEB "Code of Ethics" authors are expected to adhere to the guidelines outlined: JAFEB may consider submitted manuscripts for possible publication only if the following two conditions are satisfactory: (1) a maximum overall acceptable similarity index must be less than 25 % (< 25% in total), excluding the citations and references and the bibliography. (2) a maximum acceptable similarity index from any single source must be less than 2 % ( <2% per source).