Article 1 [Purpose)
The purpose of these regulations is to stipulate matters regarding the review of papers to be submitted to 『Trans-』.
Article 2 (Composition of editorial committee and review of research ethics regulations)
1. The paper review of this 『Trans-』 is managed by the editorial committee.
2. The editorial committee is composed of up to 30 editors, including the editor-in-chief, and the term of office of the editor-in-chief is two years and can be reappointed.
3. Before forming a review committee, the editorial committee reviews the submitted paper for its scope, suitability for publication, compliance with research ethics regulations, and compliance with the paper submission regulations, and decides whether to review the submitted paper. do.
4. The editorial committee selects reviewers for submitted papers and decides whether to publish papers that have passed the review standards and procedures specified in Article 4.
5. Editorial members serve a four-year term unless there are special reasons, and may be reappointed.
Article 3 (Qualifications and selection criteria for judges)
The qualifications and selection criteria for the judges are as follows.
1. Reviewers must be experts in the relevant field recommended by the editorial committee and editorial committee members and must have a doctoral degree or equivalent achievements. At this time, the reviewer's expertise and achievements in the relevant field become the basic conditions for reviewer recommendation. A person who can become a paper reviewer must meet at least one of the following items ① and ②.
① Position/Qualifications
-Ph.D. degree holder
-If you work at a school, you must be a full-time instructor or higher.
- A person who holds a master's degree or higher and has at least 2 years of experience as a teacher in a related field at a 2- or 4-year university.
- A person who holds a master's degree or higher and has more than 5 years of experience in the relevant industry.
② Research experience
- A person who has published a paper or higher than a candidate for registration in the past 2 years or presented at an academic conference organized by an organization that operates a paper or higher than a candidate for registration.
-Those who have participated in at least 3 topic presentations at domestic and international academic conferences
- Those who have published papers at least twice in domestic and international academic journals
2. Judges will be selected from experts in convergence fields including performance, video, media, humanities, arts, and technology, but will appoint those with the same major as the submitted paper. If there is no person with a major in the same field as the submitted paper, an external review can be requested. Reviewers refer to paper reviewers recommended by the editor-in-chief and editors, and each editor recommends at least three people to be used as reviewers. If necessary, editorial committee members may also be appointed as reviewers.
3. A small review fee is paid to the judges. However, no re-examination fee will be paid for papers that require re-examination after revision.
4. The editorial committee uses the double blind method to ensure the anonymity of reviewers during all review processes from paper submission to publication.
5. Reviewers must comply with Article 5 (Reviewer's Review Ethics Standards) of the Transmedia Research Institute's 『Trans-』 research ethics regulations.
Article 4 (Review standards and period)
1. Submitted papers that are confirmed for review through the editorial committee are reviewed by the editorial committee and three professional reviewers appointed by the editorial committee.
2. The reviewers must submit the review results to the editorial committee within 10 days in the case of a first review and 5 days in the case of a retrial from the date of receiving the request for review.
3. The examiner evaluates the submitted paper according to the 9 paper evaluation items presented in the review form (area of the submitted paper and suitability for publication, formal requirements of the paper, academic level of the paper, appropriateness of concept and logical development used in the paper, and sentence expression) 'Publication price', 'Publication price after revision', 'Re-examination after revision', and 'Cannot be published', referring to the level of the paper, appropriateness of the paper title, appropriateness of the paper abstract, appropriateness of references, and academic contribution of the paper. Determined by grade.
4. In the judge's decision, 'Publication Value' must be rated as 'Very Good' in more than 5 out of 9 items, and 'Not for Publication' must be rated as 'Inappropriate' and 'Very Inappropriate' in more than 5 items. This applies to cases where it has been received.
5. If a decision is made as ‘acceptable for publication after revision’, ‘re-examination after revision’, or ‘not for publication’, the reviewer must specify specific revision requirements according to the evaluation items in the review document.
6. Papers that are judged ‘acceptable for publication’ as a result of combining the decisions of three reviewers are published in this issue’s 『Trans-』 through prescribed procedures.
7. If, as a result of combining the decisions of the three reviewers, it is subject to 'publishing after revision', the editorial committee will notify the submitter of the reviewer's revision request, and the submitter will submit the revised paper and 'summary of revisions' within one week. A ‘rebuttal’ must be submitted. The editor-in-chief determines how many revision requests are accepted.
8. If, as a result of combining the decisions of the three reviewers, it is subject to ‘re-examination after revision’, the editorial committee will notify the contributor of the reviewers’ revision requests. The contributor may carefully review the reviewer's requests for corrections, make corrections, and resubmit to the next issue. In this case, the review fee for the relevant contributor is exempted. The editorial committee confirms whether the contributor faithfully implemented the revisions and supplements and then forwards them to the same reviewers as the first time. Final publication decision is made based on the combined results of the three reviewers' retrial decisions.
9. Papers that are judged ‘unpublishable’ as a result of the combined decisions of three reviewers cannot be resubmitted to 『Trans-』 unless the title or content is modified. In the case of a revised and supplemented paper, the editorial committee decides whether or not to accept it.
Article 5 (Judgment)
The review results, which are a composite of the decisions of the three judges, follow the principle of majority voting, and the specific processing standards for the review decisions are as follows.
1. If more than 2 people are posting, it is judged as the posting price.
2. If the price is published after revision by two or more people, it is judged as the price after revision.
3. If there is a re-examination after revision by two or more people, it is decided as a re-examination after revision.
4. If more than 2 people say it cannot be published, it is judged as unpublishable.
5. If one person publishes, one person publishes after revision, and one person re-examines after revision, it is judged as publication after revision.
6. If 1 person publishes, 1 person publishes after editing, and 1 person cannot publish, it is judged as published after editing.
7. If 1 person approves publication, 1 person revises and re-examines, and 1 person rejects publication, it is decided to revise and re-examine.
8. If one person edits and publishes, one person edits and re-examines, and one person decides that it cannot be published, it is revised and re-examines.
9. In other cases, the editorial committee decides.
Article 6 (Examination of objections)
1. If there is an objection to the results of the paper review, the paper contributor may raise the objection in writing according to the prescribed form provided by the editorial committee.
2. Objections to the review results can only be made by those who submitted papers judged to be ‘unpublishable.’
3. Appeals must be received within one month of notification of results.
4. Objections to the received review results will be reviewed by the entire editorial committee. After the editorial committee carefully reviews the content of the objection, the results will be notified to the author of the paper.
5. If the editorial committee acknowledges the objection, the paper contributor shall be notified of the changed evaluation results within one week, and all procedures regarding this shall be proceeded immediately.
Article 7 (Certificate of paper scheduled to be published)
1. The editorial committee notifies the paper contributors of the final review results based on the judges' decisions on the submitted papers. From this point on, if the contributor wishes, a certificate of publication schedule can be issued.
2. Requests for issuance of a paper publication certificate are limited to contributors who received a ‘publication price’ or ‘publication price after revision’ as the final decision upon review.
3. When a request for issuance of a paper publication certificate is received, approval for issuance is made by the editorial committee.
Article 8 (Other)
1. The copyright for papers published in academic journals is owned by 『Trans-』.
2. Other matters that may arise in relation to the review, editing, and publication of the paper are decided by the editor-in-chief, with the approval of more than 2/3 of the registered members after convening the editorial committee and discussing it.
3. Matters not specified in these regulations shall be decided by the editorial committee.
Article 9 (Amendment)
These regulations may be revised by resolution of the Editorial Committee of 『Trans-』.