Review PolicyHOME > About DSIM > Review Policy
Paper Review Guideline
1. The guideline is aimed to stipulate review and acceptance of the paper submitted to the Journal of DAEHAN Society of Industrial Management (“the Society” hereinafter).
2. Once a manuscript is submitted to the editor-in-chief, it shall be sent to the chair of the subcommittee and entered the review phase of the paper after confirmation of the author membership and payment of submission fee. Under the leadership of the subcommittee chair, sub-editing committee shall ask for appointment of judges that have related expertise and send acknowledge of the paper to the representing author.
3. The chair of the subcommittee shall select three judges, request review by sending paper review request and paper and notify the chief editor of the list naming the judges. The judge shall return the review result to the Society in 21 days when it is the first review and in 14 days when it is the re-review from the day of request. If the judge fails to submit the judging opinion within 21 days after review request, the chief editor can press him/her for submission first and failure to submit the opinion in seven days after the first pressure may result in termination of the judge. Any judge whose appointment is cancelled shall return the paper immediately to the Society.
4. The judge make decisions of “Accept without revision,” “Accept with revision,” “Re-review after revision” and “Reject” and inform the editing members of the result. The editing committee proceed with the result as follows.
|Positive feedback||Positive feedback from all three reviewers||Accept without revision, publication with revision|
|Negative feedback||Negative feedback
from one reviewer
|Re-review after revision||Re-review after revision|
|Reject||* Re-review after revision, Reject|
|* If a reviewer considers reject, the editing committee makes a final decision of “re-review after revision / reject.”|
from two reviewers
|Re-review after revision (two reviewers)||Re-review after revision|
|Re-review after revision, Reject||* Re-review after revision, Reject|
|* If two reviewers make decision of re-review / Reject even after revision, the editorial board will make the final decision of “re-review after revision / reject.”|
|Negative feedback from three reviewers||Re-review after revision (three reviewers)||Re-review after revision|
Rights of the reviewers: The reviewers have the full authority to evaluate the paper and the Society shall not be held responsible for the review result.
Review security: The reviewers have no access to any information about the author of the paper under review. Nor does the author have any information about any of the judges. The author is entitled to see the result only assessed by the judges.
5. The following shows classification of the review result, required steps and statement of judgment.
(1) Accept without revision: It is judged publication is acceptable without revision.
(2) Accept with revision : he editing committee confirms whether to revise the paper and judges publication is acceptable. If this happens, the author shall be requested to revise the paper with the review result attached. The author shall send the revised paper to the editors, who will ask to confirm the revision to the judges. The judges shall notify the editors of the result again and the editors shall report this finally to the chief editor.
(3) Re-review after revision: Re-review shall be requested on the revision made by the submitter and permitted up to twice. If this occurs, the author shall be requested to revise the paper with the review result attached. The author shall send the revised paper to the editors, who will ask for re-review of the manuscript to the judges. The judges shall let the editors know the result of re-review again and the editors shall report this finally to the chief editor.
(4) Reject: specific reasons and description shall be suggested when such a decision is made.
7. If any paper is not revised or supplemented within two months after such request to the author, the paper shall not be published.
8. The editorial board will re-examine the paper even after judgment of publication acceptable if the manuscript is later found unacceptable for publication because of plagiarism.
9. Editors shall be the only channel to exchange opinions between the judges and the authors.
10. Any disagreement between reviewers and/or disagreement with the judgment by the author shall be resolved by the editorial board.
11. Review fee is 10,000 won and 20,000 won for the normal and urgent process, respectively.
12. Any issue not provided in this guideline shall be handled according to the practices done by the editorial board.