Disclaimer: This is an English translation of the original Korean document "심사규정". In case of any discrepancy, the Korean version takes precedence.

Article 1. (Purpose)

These guidelines aim to establish standards for reviewing papers and selecting articles for publication in academic journals published by the Korean Association for Digital Humanities (KADH). The review and selection of papers submitted to journals published by this association are based on these guidelines.

Article 2. (Review Fees and Publication Fees)

This journal does not charge review fees or publication fees.

Article 3. (Review Process)

After the deadline for paper submissions, the Editorial Committee must promptly decide on the review schedule and proceed with necessary procedures such as appointing reviewers and requesting reviews. All review procedures must be completed 15 days prior to the journal's publication.

Article 4. (Appointment of Reviewers)

The Editorial Committee appoints reviewers, primarily experts in the field relevant to the paper's subject, with three experts appointed per paper. Reviewers must be appointed without conflicts of interest with the author, thus excluding reviewers from the same institution or with similar interests. For papers submitted by association officers or editorial committee members, reviewers must be appointed avoiding all potential conflicts of interest. The list of reviewers must not be disclosed externally.

Article 5. (Reviewer Qualifications)

Reviewers should be association members with outstanding research achievements comparable to editorial committee members. When necessary, external experts may be appointed as reviewers through a resolution of the Editorial Committee.

Article 6. (Review Judgment)

Papers are reviewed based on originality, appropriateness of research methods, validity of logical development, and compliance with requirements and format. Reviewers must provide one of the following judgments in the review evaluation form:

① Accept ② Minor revisions ③ Major revisions ④ Reject

For judgments ②, ③, and ④, reviewers must provide specific reasons in the review opinion form and submit it to the Editorial Committee (using the paper submission review system). The submission period is within 15 days from the date of appointment for initial reviews, and within 10 days for second or third reviews.

Review criteria include: 1) Relevance to the journal's nature, 2) Clarity of research objectives, 3) Validity of research methods, 4) Logic of discussion and structure, 5) Readability of text, 6) Originality of the paper, 7) Significance of research results.

Article 7. (Review Judgment: Paper Revision)

Papers judged as 'Accept' can be published without revision. For other cases, if the review paper is deemed to fall under one of the following four items, it is judged as 'Minor revisions' or 'Major revisions', and the author is required to revise or supplement the specific points indicated.

1. When there is no clear boundary between the author's research results and those already researched by others.
2. When the content is unreasonable or unclear.
3. When the reliability of supplementary materials or research data used in the paper's argumentation is not secured.
4. Other cases recognized as needing revision.

Papers judged as 'Minor revisions' are published after the editor-in-chief confirms that the points indicated by the reviewers have been revised. Papers judged as 'Major revisions' are re-evaluated by the original reviewers after the author's revision. However, if the original reviewers are unable to review, external reviewers may be appointed for re-evaluation. If there are instructions for re-revision in the 'Major revisions' result, publication may be postponed to the next issue according to the publication schedule.

Article 8. (Review Judgment: Rejection)

Reviewers should judge a paper as 'Reject' and provide specific reasons if the content of the paper is deemed to fall under one of the following five items:

1. When originality is not clearly demonstrated compared to existing research results.
2. When it is difficult to judge that the research method and argumentation have been carried out rationally.
3. When citation markings, presentation of reference materials, and provision of research data are not properly done.
4. When research ethics guidelines regarding conflicts of interest and co-authorship with special relations are not complied with.
5. When documents related to research ethics, such as the results of the plagiarism prevention system, are not submitted.
6. Other cases recognized as needing rejection.

Article 9. (Decision on Publication and Re-review)

The Editorial Committee makes a final judgment based on the average score of the three reviewers' evaluations after receiving the reviewers' opinion forms. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on publication.

• 80 points or higher: Accept
• 70 points or higher: Minor revisions
• 60 points or higher: Major revisions
• Below 60 points: Reject

Article 10. (Notification of Review Results)

Once the final judgment of the review is made, the Editorial Committee must notify the paper submitter of the final judgment results and requirements for revision and supplementation.

Article 11. (Submission of Revised Papers)

Paper submitters who receive a final judgment of 'Minor revisions' or 'Major revisions' must submit a revised paper within the specified deadline.

Article 12. (Confirmation of Revision)

For papers judged as 'Minor revisions', the Editorial Committee confirms the revision. For papers judged as 'Major revisions', the relevant reviewers confirm the revision and notify the Editorial Committee. Papers that have not been revised despite receiving a revision request cannot be published. However, if it is difficult to revise the paper within the specified deadline based on the publication schedule, a request for publication deferment can be made, and deferred papers can be published in the next journal issue after confirming the paper revision.

Article 13. (Objection)

If a paper submitter has an objection to the review results, they can submit an objection application within 5 days of receiving the paper review results. If there is disagreement among reviewers regarding this, the Editorial Committee will deliberate on it.

Article 14. (Handling of Objections)

In case of an objection from a paper submitter, the Editorial Committee can form a subcommittee for specific fields at the discretion of the editor-in-chief. The subcommittee must include the editor-in-chief and a director from the Research and Development Committee. If the objection is deemed valid through the subcommittee, a re-review of the relevant paper is conducted, and the paper submitter cannot raise an objection to the re-review results.

Article 15. (Dismissal and Re-appointment of Reviewers)

If a reviewer does not submit a review opinion within 15 days of being appointed, the editor-in-chief can send a reminder. If the review opinion is not submitted within 10 days after that, the relevant reviewer can be dismissed, and another reviewer can be appointed. In this case, the review period is 2/3 of the period specified in 'Article 6 (Review Judgment)'.

Article 16. (Arbitrary Revision for Editing)

Formal matters necessary for journal editing can be arbitrarily revised by the Editorial Committee.

Article 17. (Prohibition of Consecutive Publication)

The same author cannot publish papers consecutively in the journal. However, papers presented at academic conferences organized by this association, special feature articles in the journal, and co-authored papers are exceptions.

Article 18. (Order of Publication and Issuance of Publication Certificate)

The order of publication is based on the order of manuscript receipt, but the editor-in-chief can adjust this. The editor-in-chief issues a certificate of scheduled publication for manuscripts confirmed for publication upon the author's request.

Article 19. (Types of Manuscripts for Journal Publication)

The journal principally publishes academic papers, but can also include reports on Digital Humanities academic events, reviews of Digital Humanities research result websites, datasets and manuals of Digital Humanities research results, tools and source codes used in Digital Humanities research, and related guidelines. For reports, reviews, manuals, and guidelines, the Editorial Committee can decide on publication through deliberation and voting.

Article 20. (Formal Requirements for Papers)

The association must announce separate 'Paper Writing Guidelines' and 'Paper Format', and papers hoping for publication in the journal must comply with these formats.

Supplementary Provisions

① Other matters follow general conventions or the resolutions of the Editorial Committee. ② These guidelines are effective from February 8, 2023.