Korean | English

pISSN : 1976-8117 / eISSN : 2671-678X

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.09
Home > Author > Review Process

Review Process


Policy on the Evaluation of Articles in Muslim-Christian Encounter

 


Article 1

Evaluations for academic articles and general remarks submitted to the Torch Trinity Center for Islamic Studies (referred to as “the center” hereafter) will follow this policy.

 

Article 2 (Administration of Article)

1. The evaluation, decision on selection, order of publication and system of printing for articles published in journals of the center are entrusted in the Editorial Committee and submitted articles will not be returned to the submitter. However, articles that are unable to be published can be returned to the submitter online, upon request by the submitter.

2. After the article is administered, the center will send a proof of registration to the submitter.

 

Article 3 (Method of Evaluation)

1. Administered articles will be submitted to an evaluator online. However, the article will be sent by mail upon request by the evaluator.

2. Articles administered in Clause 1 will be proceeded to the next stage of the evaluation process in a timely manner.

 

Article 4 (Selection of Evaluator)

1. The Chairperson of the Editorial Committee will appoint two evaluators per article. If an article receives one evaluation of “Insufficient for publication” and another of “Publication after edits,” the Chairperson of the Editorial Committee will make the final decision on whether the article will be published. Articles evaluated at “Insufficient for publication” from both evaluators cannot be published.

 

Article 5 (Appointment of Evaluators and Evaluation Schedule)

1. An evaluator must complete and send their evaluation within three weeks of receiving the article.

2. A copy of the evaluator’s evaluation will be sent to the author of the article within one week of receiving the evaluation from the evaluator.

 

Article 6 (Emergency Evaluation System)

An emergency evaluation completes the first evaluation within one week to decide on the approval status of an article as soon as possible. If the status of an article is unclear such as due to an evaluation of “Reevaluation,” the final decision may be delayed.

 

Article 7 (Evaluation Results)

1. The list of evaluators will be kept secret, and the author will not be revealed upon appointment of an evaluator to an article.

2. The details regarding the evaluation results of an article will not be released elsewhere other than to the author of the applicable article.

3. The evaluation of an article may be executed by two anonymously appointed evaluators and the Editor-in-Chief or member of the Editorial Committee may act as an evaluator upon appointment.

4. The submitter of an article must send a written response to the questions, edits, and other critique by the evaluator within two months. If a response is not received, the evaluation of the article is automatically nullified.

5. A single evaluation is given among the following:

1) Approved for publication: When the article may be published without edits

2) Publication after edits: When edits are minor and may be published after confirmation by the Editorial Committee, without another evaluation

3) Reevaluation: When edits are major or need significant improvements to the content and needs another evaluation by an evaluator after edits are made

4) Insufficient for publication: When the content of the article is deemed inappropriate or insufficient for publication in the journal

 

Article 8 (Decision on the Status of Publication)

The Chairperson of the Editorial Committee decides on the approval status of an article based on feedback from the evaluator. If an author is asked of edits and does not submit an edited version of the article within 6 months without reason, the article is treated as insufficient for publication, and if the author wishes to resubmit the article, they must undergo the same process as a new submission. However, if a significant amount of time is needed for edits (such as additional experimentation), the author may lengthen the duration for edits upon approval by the Chairperson of the Editorial Committee.

 

Article 9 (Insufficient for Publication)

An article is confirmed as “Insufficient for Publication” if it falls under one of the following conditions:

1. If an evaluator identifies the article as falling under the following:

01. If an inappropriate matter is found in the article, such as plagiarism

02. If the originality of the article is unclear or if the methodology or analysis of the article is recognized as inappropriate

03. Other reasons deeming the article inappropriate for publication in this journal

04. If the author requests a withdrawal of the article

2. If the author did not submit an edited draft of the article and a written response within 6 months of receiving the request for reevaluation.

3. If the author did not submit a written response within two months after receiving feedback or questions from the Editorial Committee.

4. If an article is evaluated as “Insufficient for publication,” the applicable evaluator must detail the reason for the decision in the Evaluator Feedback Form, and the article or feedback from the evaluator must be returned to the author upon the author’s request.

 

Article 10 (Appeals to Evaluation Results)

If an author has an objection to the evaluation results, they may make an appeal once, and do so within one month of receiving the evaluation through a written request to the Editorial Committee. The Chairperson of the Editorial Committee must review the request for appeal and either directly address the request or discuss the matter with the Editorial Committee and announce the results to the author in written form.

 

Article 11 (Selection of Articles)

Unless there is a particular reason for otherwise, submitted articles must be published in a timely manner.

 

Article 12 (Withdrawal of Published Articles)

1. If the author, Chairperson of the Editorial Committee, a member of the Editorial Committee, or the applicable evaluator makes a request for withdrawal after finding a scientifically serious error in an article after its publication, the Chairperson of the Editorial Committee may decide to retract an article and if so, provide a detailed explanation for the decision.

2. If a matter that falls under the condition above is found, the Chairperson of the Editorial Committee must make a notice in the journal, and must delete the applicable article from the online journal immediately after the notice.

 

Additional Provisions

Article 1 (Effectuation)

This policy will be in effect from January 11, 2016.