The purpose of this regulation is to establish the criteria for reviewing a manuscript submitted for publication to the Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment.

The Editorial Committee performs a preliminary review of a submitted paper to determine whether it will undergo a peer review. During the preliminary review, if a submitted manuscript belongs to more than one of the following categories, the Editorial Committee can ask the concerned contributor to revise or modify the submitted manuscript. If the contributor does not submit the revised manuscript within the given period of time after being requested to revise the paper, the contributor is perceived to have given up revising the manuscript.

• ① If the manuscript is not adequate to the journal's purpose and scope.
• ② If the quantity, composition or content of the manuscript is not adequate,
• ③ If the manuscript does not comply with the journal's submission regulations and format.

• 1. The professional peer reviewers (hereinafter, "Peer Reviewers") are chosen solely by the Editorial Committee.
• 2. If the manuscript passes the preliminary review, it will be evaluated by three Peer Reviewers with expertise in the concerned field.

The Peer Reviewers perform an objective evaluation of the manuscript in consideration of originality, validity, completeness, usefulness, etc.:

• 1.
  Originality

  To prove that the manuscript does not duplicate with the already published content or a well-known fact, this evaluates whether it meets more than one of the following requirements;
  • ① whether it has a unique topic, content, and method
  • ② whether it raises an important issue in the academic circle or society,
  • ③ whether it contributes to explaining a phenomenon,
  • ④ whether it provides technical implications and experiences useful for creative large-scaled plans, designs or constructions,
  • ⑤ whether it provides a comprehensive summary of a timely topic and suggests a new perspective about it.
• 2.
  Validity

  To verify whether the manuscript is free from errors and it has an objective and reliable content, this evaluates the following requirements;
  • ① whether it omits specifying the quotation source of all important academic literatures and the evaluation is conducted fairly,
  • ② whether it reaches an appropriate conclusion by performing a comparative analysis with the existing technology or research outcomes,
  • ③whether it clearly describes the conditions of the experiment and interpretation.
• 3.
  Completeness

  To evaluate whether the manuscript is written accurately and concisely in accordance with the 'Manuscript Submission Guidelines', this evaluates the following requirements;
  • ① Adequacy of the entire composition
  • ② Clarity of the purpose and results
  • ③ Relation to the existing researches and technologies
  • ④ Adequacy of the expressions used in the sentences
  • ⑤ Clarity and appropriateness of the tables and figures
• 4.
  Usefulness

  To prove that the content has academic or practical values, this evaluates whether it meets more than one of the following requirements;
  • ① Whether the topic and content are adequate in terms of timeliness,
  • ② Whether the research and technology outcomes have great applicability, usefulness and development potential,
  • ③ Whether the research and technology outcomes have values in terms of practical use,
  • ④ Whether it presents a future prospect by systemizing the researches in the concerned field.

The reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the criteria set forth in Article 4 and in reference of papers published in the journal and make one of the following decisions. If the manuscript is rejected for publication, the reviewers must specify the reason in detail.

• 1.
  Acceptable for Publication

  The paper is acceptable for publication without revising any part of the manuscript

• 2.
  Acceptable for Publication after Revision

  (words and phrases) The paper contains typos or contexts which need to be modified,

  (content) The paper is considered acceptable for publication after a minor revision.

• 3.
  Re-review after Revision

  The paper is considered to need modifying an important part of the manuscript or to require a major supplementation.

• 4.
  Rejected

  The paper is considered not suitable for publication but the author(s) are encouraged to incorporate the changes suggested by the reviewers and may resubmit the paper as a new submission.

• 5.
  Recommended as a Technical Note

  The content of the manuscript is considered more suitable to be published as a 'Technical Note' than as a research paper.

If the appointed Peer Reviewer rejects to publish a paper, he or she must notify the concerned contributor of the decision as soon as possible. The Peer Reviewers in principle must notify their reviews within two weeks from the date of accepting the request for review. If the review decision is not notified within the period, the concerned contributor is allowed to request a third Peer Reviewer to assess the paper.

• 1.
  Preliminary Review

  • ①If more than two reviewers recommend the paper to be 'Accepted' for publication or 'Acceptable after Revision' in the preliminary review, it will be resubmitted to the Editorial Committee for final decision.
  • ② If more than two reviewers decide the paper to be 'rejected' in the preliminary review, it will be concluded as 'rejected'.
  • ③ Otherwise, a revised manuscript will be submitted by the contributor for re-review.
• 2.
  Revision and Re-review

  • ① If the paper is judged as 'Acceptable after Revision' in the preliminary review, the Editorial Committee will notify the concerned contributor of the decision and will make a request for revision.
  • ② The contributor who are requested to revise the original manuscript must modify it by reflecting Peer Reviewers' comments and recommendations. In principle, the contributor must submit the revised manuscript and a letter of response (using a format designated by the Editorial Committee) online within one month from, and if they are not submitted by the deadline, the contributor will be perceived to have no intention to publish the paper, and therefore, it will be rejected for publication.
  • ④ If more than two reviewers recommend the paper to be 'Accepted' for publication or 'Acceptable after Revision' in the re-review, it will be resubmitted to the Editorial Committee for final decision.
  • ⑤If more than two reviewers decide the paper to be 'rejected' in the re-review, it will be concluded as 'rejected'.
• 3.
  Confirmation of Review Completion by the Editorial Committee

  • ① If the Editorial Committee receive all the review decisions from three reviewers, it must immediately proceed with a process of 'Confirmation of Review Completion' and notify the paper contributor of the fact that the review is completed.
  • ② Once the contributor is notified of the completion of review, he or she may have to prepare a revised manuscript and a letter of response depending on the review comments and results provided by the reviewers and must submit them online to the Editorial Committee. In the letter of response (including both preliminary review and re-review), the contributor must explain in detail what has been revised in the manuscript in response to comments or recommendations of reviewers in a format designated by the KSWE.
• 4.
  Final Decision of the Editorial Committee

  • ① If the paper is decided as acceptable for publication in the preliminary review or the re-review, the Editorial Committee will make the final decision on whether it will publish the paper in consideration of the submitted manuscript, reviewers' comments, and a letter of response.
  • ② Even if the paper is judged as 'acceptable' for publication by two persons among the reviewers, when the other reviewer decides it as 'rejected' (including a recommendation as a technical note), or when the response of the contributor does not solve out the causes of rejection, the Editorial Committee will appoint the fourth reviewer to evaluate the paper, and if the fourth reviewer judges the paper as rejected for publication, the Editorial Committee, the fifth reviewer, will make the final decision by comprehensively reflecting the results.
  • ③If the Editorial Committee has any inquires in relation to the final decision making, the committee can send inquiries about the content of the manuscript, review decisions, and a letter of response to contributors or reviewers either in writing or by e-mail, the contributors and reviewers must immediately reply to the inquires.
• 5.
  The paper will be automatically concluded as rejected for publication, if it belongs to one of the following categories;

  • ① if a contributor does not submit a revised manuscript within 6 months from the data of receiving a request for review,
  • ② if a contributor does not submit a letter of response within 2 months from the data of receiving an inquiry from the Editorial Committee.

Only in the case of the above Item ② of Article 7.4 (Final Decision by the Editorial Committee), a contributor is allowed to raise objection in writing to the review decision results within one month from the date of being notified of the review results just for one time. In this case, the Editorial Committee will appoint the fifth reviewer within the committee to make the final decision on whether to publish the paper or not.

In regard to matters that are not described above, they will be dealt with in consultation with the Editorial Committee.