Korean | English

pISSN : 1975-521X / eISSN : 2765-3943

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.57
Home > Author > Review Process

Review Process


Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these regulations is to regulate the review of papers to be published in the 󰡔Journal of Korean Classical Chinese Literature󰡕 published by The Classical Chinese Literature Association of Korea.

 

Article 2 (Subjects of review) The subjects of review under these regulations are manuscripts submitted for publication in the 󰡔Journal of Korean Classical Chinese Literature󰡕 .

 

Article 3 (Reception of papers and request for review) Each paper shall be received on the JAMS website, the chairman shall request the editorial board for review, and an editorial meeting shall be held under the supervision by the editor-in-chief.

 

Article 4 (Appointment of reviewers) Matters related to each reviewer who will review the submitted paper are as follows.

    Paragraph 1) The editorial committee selects and appoints three reviewers per each submitted manuscript.

    Paragraph 2) The editorial committee appoints optimum qualified persons (majors) who can review the relevant paper as the reviewers.

    Paragraph 3) Manuscripts for review must be anonymous without fail, and all matters related to the appointment of reviewers and review shall not be disclosed. In the case of reviewing the manuscript submitted by an editor, the reviewers must be selected after ensuring that the relevant editor is absent.

    Paragraph 4) Those who have a special relationship with the paper contributor (advisor, relatives, etc. of the contributor) may not be appointed as reviewers.

 

Article 5 (Rules for judges) The rules for reviewers who will review the relevant paper are as follows.

    Paragraph 1) Shall strictly evaluate with fair standards.

    Paragraph 2) Shall not try to know the name of the contributor the manuscript of which the review was requested.

    Paragraph 3) Shall not disclose review results, etc. to others.

    Paragraph 4) Shall present opinions as detailed as possible for revision or supplementation when reviewing so that good-quality papers can be published.

 

Article 6 (Review procedure) The review procedure is as follows.

       Paragraph 1) The editorial committee selects and appoints reviewers.

       Paragraph 2) The reviewers review the manuscript commissioned to them, and submit the evaluations by item, judgments such as 'publishable', 'publishable after revision', and 'not publishable', and judgment opinions (review outline) to the editorial committee.

       Paragraph 3) The editorial committee reviews the review results of the reviewers and decides whether the submitted manuscript is 󰡐publishable', 'publishable after revision', or 'not publishable'.

      Paragraph 4) For manuscripts that have been judged 'publishable', or 'publishable after revision' as a result of the review, the editorial committee reviews the judgment opinions and informs the contributor of the review outline and revision requirements.

       Paragraph 5) For manuscripts that have been judged not unpublishable as a result of the review, the editorial committee reviews and notifies the judgment opinions to the contributors and rejects the manuscripts.

       Paragraph 6) After receiving the notification from the editorial committee, the contributor must revise and supplement the manuscript within the specified period and send it to the editor-in-chief.

       Paragraph 7) The editorial committee finally decides to publish only those papers that have been judged 󰡐publishable', or 'publishable after revision' for which the revision requirements have been faithfully fulfilled or clarified possible for publication and published after revision for which the revision requirements have been faithfully fulfilled or clarified.

 

Article 7 (Review criteria) Each reviewer comprehensively judges the following evaluation criteria and converts the results into scores based on the perfect score of 100-points. Thereafter, papers scored at least 80 points are judged as publishable, those scored 70~79 points as publishable after revisionand those scored not higher than 69 points as not publishable.

Originality of the topic of the research paper (20 points)

Consistency and clarity of the development of the point of argument (20 points)

Systematicity of the paper and appropriateness of expression (20 points)

Completeness and academic value of the paper (20 points)

Frequency of use of references, appropriateness of footnotes and citations, and compliance with the regulations for submission of papers to the journal (20 points)

 

Article 8 (Reporting of review results)

       Paragraph 1) The reviewers shall report the results of the review within 14 days from the date the review was requested. If the review is not possible within the period, the reason shall be written and returned immediately.

       Paragraph 2) The reviewers shall submit the results of their review conducted in accordance with the 'Submitted Paper Review Report.' to the committee.


Article 9 (Criteria for judgment of review by the Editorial Committee) The Editorial Committee shall comprehensively deliberate the results of review by the reviewers to judge whether the paper is󰡐publishable', 'publishable after revision', or 'not publishable' as shown in Article 6 (3), and the criteria are as follows.

       Paragraph 1) In cases where the result of the review is 󰡐publishable' by all three reviewers or 󰡐publishable' by two reviewers and 'publishable after revision' by one reviewer, the manuscript shall be determined to be 󰡐publishable.'

       Paragraph 2) In cases where the result of the review is 󰡐publishable' by two reviewers and 'not publishable' by one reviewer or 󰡐publishable' by one reviewer and 󰡐publishable after revision' by two reviewers, the manuscript shall be determined to be 'publishable after revision.'

       Paragraph 3) In cases where the result of the review is 󰡐not publishable' by two or more reviewers, the manuscript shall be determined to be 󰡐not publishable.'

       Paragraph 4) In addition, in cases where the result of judgement is different judgments by all three reviewers, 󰡐publishable after revision' by all three reviewers, or 󰡐not publishable' by one reviewer and 'publishable after revision' by two reviewers, the relevant manuscript shall be determined to be 󰡐publishable after revision' or 'not publishable' through review of the judgment opinions by the editorial committee.


Article 10 (Raising of an objection) The contributor may raise an objection against the review and whether the paper is published or not.

       Paragraph 1) A contributor who wishes to raise an objection shall write a statement of objection and send it to the editor-in-chief.

       Paragraph 2) For the paper of the contributor who raised an objection, the editorial committee shall decide whether to accept the objection. The method of action for an accepted objection shall be decided by the editorial committee.

 

Article 11 (Paper review fee) The review fee may be paid to the reviewers within the budget.  

  

First revision on January 20, 2017

Second revision on August 22, 2020.