Review Process

Appointment of Review Committee Members

1. 1. A review committee member (hereinafter referred to as Reviewer(s)) should be appointed from among the persons with a doctorate degree in his or her field of study who conducted two or more researches such as papers published in global and nation wide expert journals, books, etc.
2. 2. A Reviewer pool system should be in place from which the Committee appoints three expert reviewers who are subject matter experts or research method experts appropriate for the contents and methodologies of the manuscripts submitted during each period.
3. 3. Exclusion of reviewers
   1. 1) A person who belongs to the same institution of the author should be excluded from being the reviewer of the concerned manuscript.
   2. 2) In case the Editor-in-Chief or any member of the Editorial Board submits a manuscript, the Board members should be excluded from being the reviewer of the concerned manuscript.

Review Process and Criteria

Manuscripts should be reviewed according to the following process and criteria.

1. 1. Review Process
   1. 1) The preliminary review should be conducted by the Editorial Board to determine the suitability of the submitted manuscripts.
   2. 2) The main review should be conducted by selecting three Reviewers for each piece of the manuscripts determined suitable for reviews, in a non-disclosed setting.
   3. 3) Each Reviewer should describe the review details and determine the review result as 'accept,' 'revise and resubmit,' or 'reject,' in accordance with the review criteria of manuscript review statement, and submit such results to the Editorial Board.
2. 2. Review criteria
   1. 1) Degree of reflection of the title in the contents
   2. 2) Quality of the English (Korean) abstract
   3. 3) Necessity and logical validity of the research
   4. 4) Consistency of research topic and research methods
   5. 5) Validity of presenting and discussing the research results
   6. 6) Contribution and usability of the research results
   7. 7) Accuracy of the references
   8. 8) Quality of the research as a whole
3. 3. Review determination
   1. 1) Accept: Manuscripts accepted without any revisions, or manuscripts of which the revisions to be made are limited to the expressions, selection of vocabularies, order of contents, etc. and not the core contents.
   2. 2) Revise and resubmit: Manuscripts determined to have issues in the core contents and are required to be resubmitted after reflecting the revised and supplemental opinions of the reviewers.
   3. 3) Reject: Manuscripts determined to have issues in the core contents and a considerable period of time is required to solve such issues.
4. 4. Based on the determination of the three reviewers, the comprehensive decision on publishing should be as follows:

   Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 3	Final decision
   Accept	Accept	Accept	Accept
   Accept	Accept	Revise & Resubmit	Revise & Resubmit
   Accept	Revise & Resubmit	Revise & Resubmit	Revise & Resubmit
   Revise & Resubmit	Revise & Resubmit	Revise & Resubmit	Revise & Resubmit
   Accept	Accept	Reject	Revise & Resubmit
   Accept	Revise & Resubmit	Reject	Revise & Resubmit
   Revise & Resubmit	Revise & Resubmit	Reject	Revise & Resubmit
   Accept	Reject	Reject	Reject
   Revise & Resubmit	Reject	Reject	Reject
   Reject	Reject	Reject	Reject

5. 5. The manuscript determined as “revise and resubmit” in the comprehensive decision should faithfully reflect the request for revision and supplementation from the reviewers and submit the revised manuscript and a comparison table of revisions made. The resubmitted manuscript should be revised by the relevant reviewer, and the reviewer requested for re-examination should determine the manuscript as either 'accept' or 'reject' and submit it to the Editorial Board. Comprehensive decision on final publishing should be as per the following:

   Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 3	Final decision
   Accept	Accept	Accept	Accept
   Accept	Accept	Reject	Reviewed by the board
   Accept	Reject	Reject	Reject
   Reject	Reject	Reject	Reject

6. 6. The manuscript that determined as “reviewed by the board” in the comprehensive decision should reviewed by the Editorial Board to decide on the final publication.
7. 7. The manuscript determined as “accept” in the comprehensive decision should faithfully carry out the requests for revision or supplementation from the Reviewers, if any.
8. 8. The review statements of the reviewers should be disclosed to the author after processing all opinions anonymously.
9. 9. If an author does not consent to any review opinion of any reviewer or the comprehensive decision of the Editorial Board, he/she may raise an objection to the Board by documenting grounds for such objection. In such case, the Editorial Board conducts a re-deliberation and informs the results to the author.