Korean | English

pISSN : 2092-8114 / eISSN : 2733-4384

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.41
Home > Author > Review Process

Review Process


Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this regulation is to stipulate matters related to the review of thesis to be published in the thesis of the Korean Society for Software Appraisal (hereinafter referred to as thesis).

Article 2 (Examination Procedure) The review of submitted thesis is conducted according to the following procedure.
(1) Determination of the suitability of the subject of the submitted thesis
(2) Selection of editors for review management
(3) Selection of external judges
(4) Review
(5) Judging the results of the examination

Article 3 (Conformity to Subject) The submitted manuscript is immediately delivered to the editor-in-chief, and the editor-in-chief reviews whether the subject and content of the submitted manuscript is appropriate for the thesis and decides whether to submit it for review. Immediately specify the reason and reject it in the name of the editor-in-chief.

Article 4 (Selection of Review Management Editorial Committee) The editor-in-chief of the editor-in-chief requests the review and management of the manuscript to the editorial committee of the major that is most relevant to the subject of the manuscript submitted within 2 days.

Article 5 (Selection of External Judges) The editors in charge of reviewing and managing the submitted manuscript shall select 2 external judges according to the following criteria. Editorial committee members are not allowed to participate in the review unless it is unavoidable.
(1) (Field criteria) External judges must have conducted or are conducting research related to the subject of the thesis. In the case of a dissertation that is a fusion of other disciplines, experts from other disciplines may be selected as external judges.
(2) (Career Criteria) External judges are based on the selection of doctoral degree holders, but may select judges regardless of their degree in consideration of the specificity of the field.
(3) (Professional Criteria) External judges must have experience in conducting similar research for the last 5 years in the field of evaluation.
(4) (Activity standards) External judges must keep track of research trends through participation in academic events, etc.

Article 6 (Request and Progress of Review) Request and process of review are as follows.
(1) For thesis subject to review, the contents of the author and the organization to which the reviewed manuscript author belongs must be deleted.
(2) In the case of a first review, a review is requested from two selected judges. The contents of the review committee must be notified orally or in writing to the editor-in-chief.
(3) In the case of reconsideration, the previous judges must first request the review. If the previous judge refuses or is unable to proceed with the review, another judge shall be immediately appointed to proceed with the review.
(4) The author of the paper to be reviewed, or a person who works in the same organization as the author of the reviewed thesis cannot be appointed as a reviewer, and if such fact is recognized, the reviewer shall be replaced immediately.

Article 7 (Examination period) The review period is as follows.
(1) The reviewers are required to submit the review results to the society within 20 days after the review commission for general review thesis, and within 10 days after the review request for emergency review thesis. The editor-in-chief can urge the editor to complete the review five days before the designated screening deadline.
(2) If the judges do not submit the results of the review within the period without any special reason or if contact is lost, the editor-in-chief may suspend the request for review and reappoint the reviewer.

Article 8 (Examination Criteria) The review shall be conducted on the following 10 items, and the judges synthesize each item, and the'Publishing Price','Post-Amendment Publication Price','Review after Modification','Unpublished' '.
(1) thesis paper suitability as a thesis
   ① Appropriateness of field: It evaluates how well the subject of the submitted thesis matches the field of appraisal
   ② Appropriateness of expression: It is evaluated whether the expression of the submitted paper is properly expressed as an academic paper.
   ③ Composition and length: It is evaluated whether the submitted manuscript is properly structured and in an appropriate amount.
   ④ Citation of References: Evaluate whether the referenced documents are correct, and whether there are any intentionally omitted or incorrectly recorded documents. Also, whether the number of references is too small or too large is evaluated at the same time.
   ⑤ Reader's Interest: Evaluate whether the subject of the submitted thesis is the field of interest of those in the field of appraisal and whether it can represent academic value.

(2) Excellence in content and results of thesis research
   ① Contribution in the field: Evaluate how much the submitted thesis can contribute to the development of emotional technology research.
   ② Appropriateness of the method: Evaluate whether the method of verifying the theory used in the submitted thesis was appropriate.
   ③ Accuracy of results: Evaluate whether the research results presented in the submitted thesis are reasonable and accurate.
   ④ Novelty of the results: Evaluate how novel the research results presented in the submitted thesis are compared to the existing ones.
   ⑤ Specificity of the conclusion: Evaluate whether the results of the submitted thesis are presented concretely and reasonably.

Article 9 (Considerations for Review) When proceeding with the review, pay attention to the following items.
(1) During the review process, the reviewers must review the relationship with previously published similar thesis papers in accordance with the research ethics regulations of this research conference.
(2) The judges can exchange opinions with the contributor only through the editorial committee.
(3) If the author does not revise or supplement within 3 months when the review result is requested for revision, the review is deemed to have been abandoned.
(4) Even if the manuscript is judged as acceptable for publication as a result of the review, if the manuscript is later judged to be unpublished due to plagiarism or other reasons, it shall be processed according to the research ethics regulations.

Article 10 (Judgment of Examination Results) Two or more “publishers” or “after partial revisions” of two or more “publishers” or “after partial amendments” are submitted for review by requesting a review from two or more judges.

Article 11 (Thesis Review Fee) In order to promote the submission and publication of quality thesis, the submission and review fees for thesis for review of the thesis are free. However, if it is decided to proceed with an urgent review, a predetermined review fee must be paid in accordance with the thesis publication regulations.

Article 12 (Review Secret) The list of thesis submitters and matters related to thesis review commission cannot be disclosed to the outside. However, exceptions are made at the request of (quasi) government agencies for the evaluation and review of thesis papers.

Article 13 (Others and Exceptions) Exceptional cases may be decided by the Editorial Committee.
(1) If the opinions of the reviewers disagree or the authors disagree with the opinions of the reviewers, the editorial committee decides.
(2) In principle, the results of the review will be disclosed to the thesis contributor, but the list of reviewers will not be disclosed.
(3) The contents of the selection of the judges shall be kept private, and the editors and related members of the society shall abide by their responsibilities.