Article 1 Review and adoption of papers shall follow these regulations.
Article 2 The editorial director considers the field of the paper received and assigns it to an editor in charge of the field, and the editor selects a reviewer who is deemed suitable for review among those majoring in the field of the paper.
Article 3 Papers are reviewed by two or more reviewers, and it is recommended that reviewers with different affiliations from the paper author are appointed.
Article 4 The list of judges will not be announced at all.
Article 5 Review contents shall not be made public to anyone other than the author.
Article 6 Review results are divided into four categories: “Acceptable for publication,” “Publishment after revision,” “Reexamination after revision,” and “Publication not permitted.”
(1) Papers judged as “acceptable for publication” are accepted without editing.
(2) Papers judged to be “published after revision” are adopted after the author revises the issues pointed out by the reviewers and the editorial director confirms them.
(3) Papers judged to be “reexamination after revision” undergo a reexamination process after the author revises the issues pointed out by the reviewer.
(4) Papers judged as “not for publication” are notified that papers submitted in the name of the editor-in-chief cannot be published in academic journals.
Article 7 If it is finally determined that the content of the thesis falls under any of the clauses below, it will be judged as “adoption on hold” and the relevant matter will be pointed out specifically and requested to be revised or supplemented. Papers revised by the author are requested to be re-examined by the previous reviewers.
(1) When there is no clear difference between the author's research results and the research results of others
(2) When the main research content is unclear
(3) When the indication or explanation of figures and tables is insufficient or unclear
(4) If it is deemed necessary to make other corrections
Article 8 If it is finally determined that the content of the paper falls under any of the clauses below, it shall be judged as “unpublishable” and the reason must be specifically stated.
(1) When originality is not evident
(2) If the facts or ideas discovered by the author are not clear in the content of the paper, or if it is not clear that even if it is a known fact, it has been comprehensively analyzed or considered from a different angle than the method or viewpoint shown in the cited literature.
(3) In other cases where it is deemed inappropriate to publish in this journal
Article 9 If the opinions of the reviewers are conflicting, the editorial director may make a decision by combining the opinions of the editors. If the decision is difficult, appoint another reviewer to receive the opinions of the reviewer and refer to them to make a decision. can be lowered.
Article 10 If the editor-in-chief determines that the paper does not comply with the Society's manuscript writing guidelines, it may not be accepted.
Article 11 If the context of a manuscript written in a foreign language is unclear or it is grammatically difficult to decipher, the editorial director may recommend that the author revise it or rewrite it in Korean and submit it.
Article 12 In principle, reviewers must review the commissioned manuscript within 30 days after being requested to review and return the review opinion to the Society along with the manuscript.
Article 13 The Society sends a copy of the review opinion to the author within two weeks after receiving the review opinion from the reviewer.
Article 14 If the examiner does not submit an examination opinion within 30 days after requesting the examination, the request for examination may be dismissed. In this case, the manuscript must be immediately returned to the Society.
