서브이미지

Guidelines for the Review of Submissions

Home > WHAT WE DO 1(KCI등재지) > Guidelines for the Review of Submissions

Guidelines for the Review of Submissions

 

Article 1. Author Qualifications

§1. Only members of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences may submit articles.

§2. However, membership is completely open to anyone who registers with the Institute, and may be postponed until after a submission has been accepted for publication.

§3. In the case of co-authored submissions, at least one author should register for membership with the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, if not already a member.

§4. Special issues of the journal are exempt from the above qualifications.

§5. An author, whether writing singly or as a co-author, can submit at most only two articles within twelve (12) months.

Article 2. Reasons for Rejection of Submission Prior to Review

The chief editor or editorial board may reject a submission prior to sending it out to outside peer reviewers for the following reasons:

1.      Prior publication of a submission, whether in its entirety or in significant portions.

2.      Commercially supported papers without direct acknowledgment and a statement of authorial independence.

3.      Manuscripts without original research and/or analysis.

4.      Manuscript size or style inconsistent with journal standards.

Article 3. Criteria for Selection of Reviewers

§1. Any of the editors may select peer reviewers based on background and areas of expertise.

§2. Every submission should be sent to two peer reviewers.

§3. A submitting author or co-author cannot be a reviewer of his or her own submission.

§4. If a submitting author or co-author is a member of the editorial board of the journal, he or she is barred from participation in the selection of reviewers or any other aspect of the review process.

Article 4. Criteria for the Review of Submissions

Reviewers evaluate submissions according to the following criteria:

1.       Significance and suitability of the subject and clarity of the research purpose.

2.      The quality and uniqueness of the research and its linkage with significant ongoing issues.

3.      Soundness of the research methodology and construction of the argument.

4.      Logical strictness of the research analysis.

5.      Significance of the contribution of the submission’s research findings.

6.      Observance of the journal’s regulations.

Article 5. Review Process and Decision-making Procedures

§1. A reviewer should make a decision on a submission within 14 days of receiving it.

§2. There are four possible decisions on a submission. The reviewer must choose one of the following options:

1.      Acceptance as Submitted. The submission can be published as it stands, except for such minor adjustments as may be flagged by the editorial board (see Article 6 §5 below).

2.      Acceptance with Minor Revisions. The submission is deemed ready for publication except for relatively minor changes to be specified in writing by the reviewer on a point-by-point basis, and addressed by the author(s) in a similar point-by-point fashion in documentation attached to the revision.

3.      Reconsideration after Major Revision. The reviewer feels that major changes in argumentation, organization, and/or presentation would be required before publication, which in most cases would not take place in the forthcoming issue of the journal but would be postponed until after completion of the major revision. Because of the extent of the changes envisioned, no point-by-point critique is necessary, but the reviewer must clearly specify the nature and extent of revisions desired, with clear examples explaining why the current version is considered inadequate. The author(s) must attach documentation to the revision detailing how it addresses the reviewer’s concerns.

4.      Rejection. The reviewer argues that for reasons of inadequacy in relevance, originality, use of evidence, argumentation, organization, and/or presentation, the submission should not be published without radical reconceptualization and thorough rewriting by the author(s) such as would amount to a completely different article.

§3. If both reviewers are in agreement as to one of the four possible outcomes as outlined above, their judgment is final.

 

 

Acceptance as Submitted

Acceptance with Minor Revision

Acceptance after Major Revision

Rejection

R1

R2

R1

R2

R1

R2

R1

R2

A

A

A

Minor

A/Minor

Major

R

R

Minor

A

Minor

A

Major

Major

R

Major

A

Minor

Minor

Minor

A

R

R

A/Minor

R1 = Reviewer 1; R2 = Reviewer 2; A = Acceptance as Submitted; Minor = Acceptance with Minor Revision; Major = Acceptance after Major Revision; R = Rejection

§4. If a discrepancy exists between the two reviewers’ reports, the following guidelines would be followed by the editorial board (see also the diagram above, although the text below shall be determinative):

1.      If one reviewer suggests acceptance as submitted and the other argues for acceptance with minor revisions, the editorial board will review the second reviewer’s suggested revisions and determine, based on the validity of the criticism, whether to publish as submitted or to publish after the concerns of the reviewer voting for acceptance with minor revisions are addressed by the author(s).

2.      If one reviewer suggests acceptance as submitted and the other argues for reconsideration after major revisions, the editorial board will review the second reviewer’s critique and determine, based on the validity and extent of the concerns raised, whether to ask the author(s) for relatively minor revisions that could be accomplished in time for publication in the forthcoming issue, or for a major reconceptualization and rewriting to be published in a future issue.

3.      If one reviewer votes for acceptance with minor revisions and the other argues for reconsideration after major revisions, the editorial board will closely examine the two critiques to determine whether, in its view, the revisions envisioned by either or both reviewers are valid and are in actuality minor or major. In the case of a determination that only minor changes are needed, the submission would be treated as if both reviewers had voted for “acceptance with minor revisions.” In the case of a determination that major changes are required, the submission would be treated as if both reviewers had voted for “reconsideration after major revisions.”

4.      If one reviewer votes for rejection and the other selects any of other three options, the editorial board will closely examine the case made by the first reviewer. If in their judgment the reviewer has made a strong case based on a serious reading of the submission and backed up by persuasive evidence regarding the text’s inadequacies, the submission must be rejected, no matter what the other reviewer has argued. However, if the editorial board finds any room for doubt as to whether rejection is justifiable, the board must in this instance give the submission to a third peer reviewer if publication is still desired by the author(s), per Article 6 §1 below. If the third reviewer opts for rejection, that must be the final decision. If the third reviewer chooses one of the other three options, the “rejection” vote will be ignored and the decision on publication will be based on the reports of the other two reviewers in accordance with the criteria outlined in §3 and §4 subsections 1-3 above.

Article 6. Revision Procedures after Initial Review

§1. The editorial board must normally initiate contact with the author(s) within one day of receipt of the second reviewer’s decision with the results of both reviewers’ decisions, the reasons for their decision if it is anything other than acceptance as submitted, and guidelines from the editorial board as to how to respond in the case of differences between the reviewers. The single exception would be a situation in which only one of the reviewers opted for “rejection” and the editorial board has determined that there is room for argument as to the possibility of publication of the submission after revision (see Article 5 §4 subsection 4 above). In this instance, the author(s) will be given a choice between submitting the manuscript to a different journal or waiting on the results of a third reviewer’s evaluation.

§2. Revisions based on the reviewer-provided documentation should be sent to the editorial board, which shall determine whether the changes adequately address reviewer concerns. If the authorial revisions are deemed by the editorial board to have been insufficient, the submission is returned to the author(s) for additional changes.

§3. If the decision by both reviewers was reconsideration of a manuscript after major revisions, the manuscript can be resubmitted only once. If only one of the reviewers chose the “reconsideration after major revisions” option, the editorial board can allow more than one resubmission based on its determination of the significance of the issues raised.

§4. If a submission has been rejected, the editorial board has the option of declining to send out for review a future submission by the same author(s) if in their judgment it is only a revision rather than a thorough receonceptualization of the previous submission.

§5. At any point in the editorial process after initial submission the editorial board can request or, in minor instances, initiate changes in spelling, punctuation, citation and bibliographical format, alphabetization, etc., to conform to established standards and house style. Prompt attention by the author(s) to editorial requests is necessary in order to avoid publication delays or postponement.

§6. In the case of submissions originally in Korean, the submission of a second version translated into English is required prior to simultaneous publication of both versions in SHSS. However, submission of this English translation can await notice of acceptance of the original Korean text as submitted or with minor revisions, and can accompany any changes in the Korean text created in reaction to reviewer comments. For publication in the forthcoming issue the final Korean text and English translation must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the scheduled publication date. In that period the co-editor in charge of English submissions will review the English translation, initiate minor changes for grammatical or stylistic purposes, and query the author(s) regarding any major issues.

Article 7. Publication of Regular and Special Issues

§1. Regular issues are published four times a year.

§2. Regular issues are published on February 28, May 31, August 31, and November 30.

§3. To accommodate the review process a submission originally in Korean must be received within sixty (60) days of a regular issue publication date for it to be considered for that issue. A submission originally in English must be received within forty-five (45) days of the publication date. In either case, if there are requested revisions, publication may be postponed. It is therefore strongly recommended that manuscripts in Korean or English be submitted prior to the respective issue deadlines.

§4. Publication of special issues can be determined by the editorial board or through a request by outside parties.

§5. Special issues will have the same review process as regular issues of the journal, except that at the editorial board’s discretion certain steps in the regular procedures can be altered or omitted as deemed appropriate.

§6. The editorial board can invite guest editors for special issues.

Article 8. Publication Priorities

§1. Submission of the same paper to other journals or publication venues during the review process is forbidden.

§2. The default languages of this journal are Korean and English. The author(s) of an article submitted in Korean must provide an English translation of the full text, including references, prior to publication. Native Korean speakers offering a submission in English are expected to provide a separate translation of the title, abstract, and keywords into Korean; the Korean translations for non-native and foreign scholars will be provided by SHSS staff.

§3. The editorial board at its discretion may authorize publication of an article written in another language, with titles, abstracts, and keywords translated into both Korean and English. Titles of works in the article’s list of references in Chinese, Japanese, French, or German need not be translated.

Article 9. Review and Publication Fees

§1. To cover editorial, review, and publication costs the author or chief author of a co-authored submission should, upon acknowledgment of its receipt and acceptability for outside review, forward 100,000 won or its equivalent in other currencies to the journal, except in cases in which the author(s) acknowledge financial support from outside their academic institution or other workplace for their research. In the latter circumstance the author or chief author of a co-authored paper should forward 200,000 won or its equivalent.

§2. Authors or chief authors residing outside the Republic of Korea may deduct any charges for international money transfers from the publication fees.

§3. The special issue review and publication fees are the same as for regular issues.

§4. Review and publication fees should be sent to the Honam University Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences account at the Korean Post Office Bank, account number 503912-02-1275232.

Article 10. Additional Points

§1. All submissions will be reviewed by the editorial board for consistency with the Chicago Manual of Style guidelines and SHSS house style. English texts must be reviewed for readability in English prior to publication.

§2. Every problem in the review and publication process shall be addressed by the editorial board, which retains full authority over the publication of the journal.