본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

Review Process


Provision on Review of the Asia-Pacific Journal of Canadian Studies


Article 1 (Purpose)

This provision aims to prescribe a review of submitted papers and whether to accept them to the Asia-Pacific Journal of Canadian Studies (hence, “this Journal”).


Article 2. (Appointment of Reviewers)

The editor-in-chief shall appoint two reviewers suitable for the field of the accepted paper but shall exclude reviewers who are affiliated with the same institution as the reviewee is.


Article 3. (Request for Paper Review)

This editing committee shall request for review of the papers within a week after assigning two review members.


Article 4. (Review Period)

① The editing member shall return the review outcomes within at least 15 days in the case of the first review and within at least 7 days in the case of the second review.

② In case a reviewer does not submit his or her review opinion within 20 days after being appointed as a reviewer, the editor-in-chief shall urge the examiner to submit the review opinion, and in case the reviewer does not submit the review opinion within 7 days after the first round of urging, the chief editor may dismiss the reviewer.

③ The dismissed reviewer promptly shall destroy any review data such as assigned papers and their associated files.


Article 5 (Review Process of the Reviewer)

① The reviewer shall submit his or her review along with a review outcome, which can be one of “Accept as is”, “Accept after revision”, “Re-review after revision”, or “Reject”, to this editing committee.

② When it is recognized that the paper should be revised, the reviewer shall specify in detail the content to be revised.

③ In case the thesis is judged to be “Reject”, the reviewer should specify in detail the reason for his or her opinion on the paper review.

④ When the paper review is finished, the reviewer shall destroy the review data such as the paper and its files.


Article 6. Review by an Editor in Chief

① Based on the review results by all reviewers, the editor-in-chief shall judge the paper in his or her opinion on the review outcome: “Accept as is”, “Accept after revision”, “Re-review after revision”, and “Reject”.

② When the judgment by the editor-in-chief is “Accept after revision”, revision of the paper and response to the review opinion shall be requested, the revised paper and response shall be submitted, and they shall be reviewed by the editor.

③ When the editor-in-chief judges that the paper should be “Re-review after revision”, revision of the paper and response to the review opinion shall be requested from the author. The revised paper and response shall be submitted to and reviewed by the reviewers who demanded revision and the chief editor.

④ In case the request for the paper was made to the author and he or she does not submit the revised paper within one month without special reasons, the author is regarded to have given up submitting his or her paper.


Article 7 (Determination of Whether to Accept a Paper or Not)

① In case the opinion by the editor-in-chief is “Accept as it is” or “Reject”, it shall be forwarded to the editing committee.

② The editing committee shall determine whether to accept or reject the paper or not based on the opinion of the editor-in-chief. This determination of a submitted paper can also be made by the editor-in-chief and the executive director of editing.

③ After determining whether to accept it or not, the editing committee shall notify the result of the author.


Article 8 (Security)

Any information on the thesis review shall not be disclosed to others.


Supplementary provision (Enforcement Date) This provision shall be enforced from March 1, 2016.

Supplementary provision (Enforcement Date) This provision shall be enforced from July 1, 2018.

Supplementary provision (Enforcement Date) This provision shall be enforced from January 1, 2022.


Basic Search Advanced Search