|
The Korean Society of Fashion Business Review Policy
Article 1 (Purpose) This policy aims to prescribe matters regarding the examination of various papers contributed to the Korean Society of Fashion Business.
(1) Reviewers should be professional scholars or experts holding a doctoral degree related to the major concerned, an assistant professor or higher at a university, or a senior researcher or higher at a research institute, as well as regular members of this society. .
Article 2 (Selection and appointment of reviewers)
1) Every manuscript review process should be done using the online submission system. When the manuscript is submitted, the editor-in-chief performs an initial review to determine whether the theme of the paper is suitable for the purpose and range of the journal. Depending on the sub-field of the submission, the editor who is most appropriate to handle the manuscript is chosen from the editorial committee. Then, the chosen editor recommends review panel members according to the content of the manuscript, and editor-in-chief appoints them as reviewers considering their expertise and contribution level to the subject area.
(2) Reviewers should return the review reports and manuscripts within 14 days.
(3) Reviewers can be replaced when a review report has not been delivered within 30 days of assignment.
(4) Other matters not specified in the review policy should be handled by the editor-in-chief according to general practices and then reported to the editorial committee
Article 3 (Review of manuscript)
(1) The submitted manuscript goes through a minimum of three reviewers, and the editorial committee decides whether it can be published or not.
(2) The review is carried out using the following eight criteria:
①Creativity
②Academic aspects and contributions
③Clarity and appropriateness of research purpose and topic
Suitability of research methodology and reliability of data
Integrity of research content
⑥Logic of research system and structure
⑦Incorporation of latest research trends Syntax and expression (grammar, formatting, etc.)
(3) Reviewers make a decision of ‘publish as it is’, ‘publish after revision’, ‘further review after revision’ or ‘not publish’ and inform the editor-in-chief of the decision.
(4) In case of ‘publish as it is’, the contributors should directly revise and then publish the submission.
- In case of ‘publish after revision’, the contributors should revise and supplement the paper, describe the detailed revision contents in the「manuscript revision report」, and submit it to the society along with the revised paper, so that it may be confirmed by the editorial committee and published.
- In case of ‘further review after revision’, the contributors should revise the paper according to he reviewers’ comments and directions, and submit the revised paper along with the「manuscript revision report」; the revised paper should then undergo reexamination by reviewers. In this case, the reexamination can be judged as ‘publish as it is’, ‘publish after revision’ or ‘not publish.’
- Cases of ‘not publish’ should be limited to those getting a D grade in one or more items from the objective evaluation or inappropriate realization of revision orders from the reexamination. When a paper is judged as ‘not publish’ as a result of examination by reviewers, one of the following reasons should be specified.
a. An already published paper
b. A case lacking originality due to its similarity to the contents of an already published paper
c. A case with illogic or logically unsystematic contents
d. Other reasons for being inappropriate to publish in the journal
(5) If two or more of the three reviewers decide it to be ‘publish as it is’ then it can be published. Conversely, if two or more of the three reviewers decide ‘not publish,’ it cannot be published.
(6) In cases where an article cannot be published due to plagiarism or other reasons, even though the paper has been previously deemed publishable” the editorial committee can change their decision to ‘not publish.’
(7) When the modified manuscript is not submitted within 6 months of a revision request, it is deemed withdrawn from the submission process.
(8) The entire review processes from paper contribution to publication should be handled anonymously, and the reviewers should not make public or abuse any information obtained during the review processes.
Article 4 (Composition of subcommittees) When there are conflicts in review results, the editorial committee should form a subcommittee, which should be composed of five experts, including the chairman. The subcommittee should go through an reexamination procedure and then report its examination results to the editorial committee, and the chairman should notify the author of the outcome.
※ Any problems not specified in this policy should comply with the decisions of the editorial committee.
|
