Peer review Policy For AuthorsPeer review Policy Review Period, Qualification 1. Reviewers must adhere to the review timeframe,, specified by the ADJ.2. If the review cannot be completed within the timeframe, due to unavoidable circumstances, the editor-in-chief shall be notified immediately.3. If the reviewer feels that he/she is not qualified for reviewing the assigned manuscript, he/she shall inform the editor-in-chief who shall then assign a different reviewer. Content Relevancy, Duplicate Publication, and Plagiarism Verification 1. The reviewers should determine whether the contents of the submitted manuscript are suitable for publication in the ADJ. 2. The reviewers should report to the editorial board if they detect improprieties of authorship,, such as duplicate publication of part or the entire manuscript and plagiarism, during the review process. Fair Review, Confidentiality, No Quotation [Revised 12/12/2019] 1. Reviewers must review submissions fairly, according to objective standards, regardless of personal academic beliefs, personal relationships with the author(s), or preconception against the author(s).2. Reviewers should not provide biased evaluation based on personal point of view or interpretation. Furthermore, reviewers should not review a submission without reading it properly and their opinions should be based on sufficient evidence.3. The editor-in-chief shall collect comments from the reviewers and inspect them for bias and unfairness. 4. The editor-in-chief may exclude reviewers or suspend the review process if reviewer(s) have conflict(s) of interest. When a problem arises due to a conflict of interest, the editorial board meeting shall be convened and conduct an investigation. 5. If the author raises an objection to the review result, the editor-in-chief shall convene an editorial board meeting to fully discuss and appraise the objection.6. The reviewers must ensure confidentiality of the manuscript in review. The reviewer shall neither disclose any information related to the manuscript to anyone nor discuss its contents with others unless he/she is seeking special advice pertaining to the manuscript.7. The reviewers should not cite the contents of the manuscript without the author’s consent before the manuscript is published. Preparation of Evaluation Report 1. The rationale for objective evaluation of the manuscript must be explained, and the grounds for request of correction or supplementation of the manuscript shall be described in detail. The reviewers shall provide detailed feedback on the strengths and limitations of the manuscript that receives “revision and resubmission” or “reject.” 2. The reviewers must respect the independent and personal dignity of the author as a professional researcher, and shall use courteous and considerate expressions. Degrading or insulting expressions are not permitted. Notification of Evaluation Results 1. Upon completion of the review process, the reviewers shall notify the editorial board of their review decision.2. The editorial board shall notify the author(s) of the review result. 메뉴타이틀: <div class="rule"><dl><dt>Review Period, Qualification</dt><dd>1. Reviewers must adhere to the review timeframe,, specified by the <em>ADJ.</em><br />2. If the review cannot be completed within the timeframe, due to unavoidable circumstances, the editor-in-chief shall be notified immediately.<br />3. If the reviewer feels that he/she is not qualified for reviewing the assigned manuscript, he/she shall inform the editor-in-chief who shall then assign a different reviewer.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Content Relevancy, Duplicate Publication, and Plagiarism Verification</dt><dd>1. The reviewers should determine whether the contents of the submitted manuscript are suitable for publication in the <em>ADJ.</em> <br />2. The reviewers should report to the editorial board if they detect improprieties of authorship,, such as duplicate publication of part or the entire manuscript and plagiarism, during the review process.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Fair Review, Confidentiality, No Quotation [Revised 12/12/2019]</dt><dd>1. Reviewers must review submissions fairly, according to objective standards, regardless of personal academic beliefs, personal relationships with the author(s), or preconception against the author(s).<br />2. Reviewers should not provide biased evaluation based on personal point of view or interpretation. Furthermore, reviewers should not review a submission without reading it properly and their opinions should be based on sufficient evidence.<br />3. The editor-in-chief shall collect comments from the reviewers and inspect them for bias and unfairness. <br />4. The editor-in-chief may exclude reviewers or suspend the review process if reviewer(s) have conflict(s) of interest. When a problem arises due to a conflict of interest, the editorial board meeting shall be convened and conduct an investigation. <br />5. If the author raises an objection to the review result, the editor-in-chief shall convene an editorial board meeting to fully discuss and appraise the objection.<br />6. The reviewers must ensure confidentiality of the manuscript in review. The reviewer shall neither disclose any information related to the manuscript to anyone nor discuss its contents with others unless he/she is seeking special advice pertaining to the manuscript.<br />7. The reviewers should not cite the contents of the manuscript without the author’s consent before the manuscript is published.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Preparation of Evaluation Report</dt><dd>1. The rationale for objective evaluation of the manuscript must be explained, and the grounds for request of correction or supplementation of the manuscript shall be described in detail. The reviewers shall provide detailed feedback on the strengths and limitations of the manuscript that receives “revision and resubmission” or “reject.” <br />2. The reviewers must respect the independent and personal dignity of the author as a professional researcher, and shall use courteous and considerate expressions. Degrading or insulting expressions are not permitted.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Notification of Evaluation Results</dt><dd>1. Upon completion of the review process, the reviewers shall notify the editorial board of their review decision.<br />2. The editorial board shall notify the author(s) of the review result.</dd></dl></div> <div class="rule"><dl><dt>Review Period, Qualification</dt><dd>1. Reviewers must adhere to the review timeframe,, specified by the <em>ADJ.</em><br />2. If the review cannot be completed within the timeframe, due to unavoidable circumstances, the editor-in-chief shall be notified immediately.<br />3. If the reviewer feels that he/she is not qualified for reviewing the assigned manuscript, he/she shall inform the editor-in-chief who shall then assign a different reviewer.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Content Relevancy, Duplicate Publication, and Plagiarism Verification</dt><dd>1. The reviewers should determine whether the contents of the submitted manuscript are suitable for publication in the <em>ADJ.</em> <br />2. The reviewers should report to the editorial board if they detect improprieties of authorship,, such as duplicate publication of part or the entire manuscript and plagiarism, during the review process.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Fair Review, Confidentiality, No Quotation [Revised 12/12/2019]</dt><dd>1. Reviewers must review submissions fairly, according to objective standards, regardless of personal academic beliefs, personal relationships with the author(s), or preconception against the author(s).<br />2. Reviewers should not provide biased evaluation based on personal point of view or interpretation. Furthermore, reviewers should not review a submission without reading it properly and their opinions should be based on sufficient evidence.<br />3. The editor-in-chief shall collect comments from the reviewers and inspect them for bias and unfairness. <br />4. The editor-in-chief may exclude reviewers or suspend the review process if reviewer(s) have conflict(s) of interest. When a problem arises due to a conflict of interest, the editorial board meeting shall be convened and conduct an investigation. <br />5. If the author raises an objection to the review result, the editor-in-chief shall convene an editorial board meeting to fully discuss and appraise the objection.<br />6. The reviewers must ensure confidentiality of the manuscript in review. The reviewer shall neither disclose any information related to the manuscript to anyone nor discuss its contents with others unless he/she is seeking special advice pertaining to the manuscript.<br />7. The reviewers should not cite the contents of the manuscript without the author’s consent before the manuscript is published.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Preparation of Evaluation Report</dt><dd>1. The rationale for objective evaluation of the manuscript must be explained, and the grounds for request of correction or supplementation of the manuscript shall be described in detail. The reviewers shall provide detailed feedback on the strengths and limitations of the manuscript that receives “revision and resubmission” or “reject.” <br />2. The reviewers must respect the independent and personal dignity of the author as a professional researcher, and shall use courteous and considerate expressions. Degrading or insulting expressions are not permitted.</dd></dl><dl><dt>Notification of Evaluation Results</dt><dd>1. Upon completion of the review process, the reviewers shall notify the editorial board of their review decision.<br />2. The editorial board shall notify the author(s) of the review result.</dd></dl></div>
