eISSN : 2384-106
pISSN : 2384-1052
Journal Information  l  e-Submission  l  View-FullText
Journal Information > Editor's & Reviewer's Guide
Indexed by / Related sites
   한국해양공학회
 
 

JAROE Review Guidelines

 


 

1. (Objective) The guidelines aim to regulate various matters regarding the review process for manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal of Advanced Research in Ocean Engineering (referred to as "the journal"), an English journal published by the Korean Society of Ocean Engineers .


2. (Review Rules) The papers submitted for review must meet the definition of a manuscript, which is clarified in the submission guidelines that are supplied by the society. The papers must report the findings in a manner compatible with the objectives of the publication of the journal.


3. (Reviewers) The editor in charge selects and appoints at least two reviewers for the review.


4. (Review)


1) The appointed reviewers must submit a review report in the prescribed format by the given deadline (the specific date to be decided by the editors' board). If the review is expected to take longer than the given date, the reviewer must inform the editor in charge.


2) If the appointed reviewer does not submit the review report by the deadline or does not complete the review, the editor in charge must appoint a new reviewer.


3) When the quality of the manuscript is evaluated by the chief manager as remarkably superior or inferior, the manuscript can be either accepted or rejected for publication without going any further in the review process.


5. (Review Result) The review results should be categorized into the following four groups.


1) Accept Unconditionally: manuscripts that are accepted for publication without the revision of the author('s/s') original manuscript


2) Accept Conditionally: manuscripts that are judged to be quite suitable for publication after some changes are made by the author(s) (the changes in the content and length of the manuscripts outlined in the reviewers' comments)


3) Invite for Revision and Another Round of Review: manuscripts judged to require significant changes and another round of review in order to qualify for publication


4) Reject Unconditionally: manuscripts judged as irrelevant or which require such complete changes in content that a new submission seems more desirable


6. (Processing of Review Results): The editor in charge must process the review in the following order:


1) When the review results of two or more reviewers are identical, the editor follows the reviewers' decision.


2) For review results other than those that fall under step 1), the editor in charge reflects on the review results and makes a review decision.


3) When the same reviewer has evaluated the same manuscript more than three times during different rounds of review, the reviewer's decision can be considered to be "reject unconditionally" given the board of editors' goal to prevent the delay of publication.


4) When the author(s) is asked for a revision and does not submit the revised manuscript in three months, the manuscript is judged as "reject unconditionally."


5) If not specified above, the editor in charge convenes with the chief editor and proceeds with the review process.


7. (Confidentiality) The editor in chief must keep the personal information of the author(s) and the reviewers from each other, as well as the review contents.


8. (Objection Request) The editor in chief must mediate between the author(s) and reviewers when there is an objection raised by the author. If the difference in opinions is not resolved, the issue is reported to the chief editor and will be processed according to the decision of the board of editors. However, when the manuscript is reviewed as "reject unconditionally," the author(s) cannot request another round of review.


9. (Review fee) After the review, the reviewers will be paid by the society. However, when the reviewer does a re-evaluation of the same manuscripts, he/she does not get paid.


10. (Review Reference) Any official documents submitted during the review process will be kept by the editor in charge. The editor in charge will report to the chief editor and destroy the documents 24 months after the announcements of the decisions for "accept unconditionally" or "reject unconditionally."

 

 

[20, October 2016 enacted]