본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

Review Process


Article 1 (number of judges)

Executives (editing committees, etc.) All manuscripts submitted, including manuscripts, must be reviewed by at least three experts in the field. However, the review may be exempted for manuscripts requested by the Society for special contributions, and the editing committee may review the system and request amendments if necessary.

Article 2 (selection of judges)

The editor-in-chief informs the editors of the main contents of the submitted manuscript, and the editor-in-chief selects the judges from among the judges recommended by the editors. Judges can be commissioned not only to members of the Society but also to experts related to domestic and overseas. The list of judges for each manuscript selected will not be disclosed outside the editorial board.

Article 3 (request for review)

In the name of the editor-in-chief, ask the judge(s) to judge.

Article 4 (Submission of examination results)

After the review, the judges must fill out the form in Form 1 (thesis review opinion) and submit it to the editorial board.

Article 5 (primary examination)

The results of the first evaluation are divided into four categories as follows.

Can be published without modification as it is

The editing committee can post after revising the contents according to the pointed out.

Re-examination for publication after revision

Not published

Article 6 (Notification of examination results)

When the results of the review are collected from the judges, it is notified to the contributor so that the contributor can correct, supplement, and express their intentions. In the case of disagreement with the opinions of the judges, the opinions that place a burden on the contributor will be given priority. If the contributor has any objection to the results of the review, he/she can express his/her intention by filling out form 2 (author's opinion), which will be reviewed by the editorial committee to decide whether to publish.

Article 7 (second review)

If the result of the first review falls under Article 5 ③, a second review is requested by attaching the opinion of the contributor to the review opinion. However, in the case of Article 5 ②, if the editor-in-chief determines that it is necessary, a second review may be requested. The 2nd audit result is also divided into 4 categories as the 1st audit result.

Article 8 (No publication)

In the following cases, it is considered impossible to post.

In the case of judging that two or more judges cannot be published during the review process

If the contributor receives a request for revision or supplementation in the results of the review but fails to amend or supplement within the notified period without justifiable reasons

In the event that the contributor raises a written objection to the manuscript that has been judged not to be published, the editor-in-chief will notify the editors and deliberate on whether or not to publish the manuscript.

Article 9 (Selection of the Third Jury)

If there is a disagreement between the judges in Article 8 ②, a third judge shall be selected and requested.

Article 10 (Examination Form)

The format required for the review process is approved by the editorial board and used.

Article 11 (examination fee)

A predetermined fee is paid to the judges.

Article 12 (Delegation)

Matters not specified in this regulation are handled according to custom by the editor-in-chief and reported to the editorial board.


Basic Search Advanced Search