Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment

pISSN : 2289-0971

eISSN : 2289-098X

For Authors & Reviewers _ Instruction for Reviewers
Instruction for Reviewers
1. Purpose

The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure a fair, thorough, and consistent review process for manuscripts submitted to the Journal of the Korean Society for Water Environment.

2. Preliminary Review

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

  • Whether the manuscript is not adequate to the journal's purpose and scope,
  • Whether the quantity, composition or content of the manuscript is not adequate,
  • Whether the manuscript does not comply with the journal's submission guidelines and format.

By ensuring that manuscripts meet these basic requirements, the Editorial Committee can maintain the quality and relevance of submissions before they proceed to the detailed peer review process.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers
  • 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.
4. Criteria of Peer Review

The Peer Reviewers perform an objective evaluation of the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • 4.1. Originality

    To ensure that the manuscript does not duplicate already published content or well-known facts, the originality criterion evaluates whether it meets more than one of the following requirements:

    • Whether it has a unique topic, content, and method,
    • Whether it raises an important issue in the academic circle or society,
    • Whether it contributes to explaining a phenomenon,
    • Whether it provides technical implications and experiences useful for creative large-scaled plans, designs or constructions,
    • Whether it provides a comprehensive summary of a timely topic and suggests a new perspective about it.
  • 4.2. Validity

    To verify whether the manuscript is free from errors and has objective and reliable content, the validity criterion evaluates the following requirements:

    • Whether it omits specifying the quotation source of all important academic literatures and the evaluation is conducted fairly,
    • Whether it reaches an appropriate conclusion by performing a comparative analysis with the existing technology or research outcomes,
    • Whether it clearly describes the conditions of the experiment and interpretation.
  • 4.3. Completeness

    To evaluate whether the manuscript is written accurately and concisely in accordance with the '1. Introduction to Authors', the completeness criterion assesses the following requirements:

    • Adequacy of the overall composition.
    • Clarity of the purpose and results.
    • Relation to existing research and technologies.
    • Adequacy of the expressions used in the sentences.
    • Clarity and appropriateness of the tables and figures.
  • 4.4. Usefulness

    To prove that the content has academic or practical value, the usefulness criterion evaluates whether it meets more than one of the following requirements:

    • Whether the topic and content are adequate in terms of timeliness,
    • Whether the research and technology outcomes have great applicability, usefulness, and development potential,
    • Whether the research and technology outcomes have value in terms of practical use,
    • Whether it presents a future prospect by systematizing the research in the concerned field.
5. Review Decisions
  • 5.1. Acceptable for Publication

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

  • 5.2. 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.

  • 5.3. Re-evaluation after Revision

    If a manuscript is deemed to require major modifications or substantial supplementation, it will undergo a re-evaluation process.

  • 5.4. Rejection

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

  • 5.5. Recommended as a Technical Note

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

6. Processing of Review Results

If the appointed Peer Reviewer rejects a manuscript, they must notify the authors of the decision as soon as possible. Peer Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews and notify their decisions within two weeks from the date of accepting the review request. If the review decision is not reported within this period, the authors is allowed to request to replace the reviewers.

7. Processing of Review Results
7.1. Preliminary Review
  • If 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 a final decision.
  • If more than two reviewers decide the paper should be 'Rejected' in the preliminary review, it will be concluded as 'Rejected'.
  • Otherwise, the contributor will submit a revised manuscript for re-evaluation.
7.2. Revision and Re-evaluation
  • 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 request revisions.
  • The authors who are requested to revise the original manuscript must modify it by incorporating the Peer Reviewers' comments and recommendations. In principle, the authors must submit the revised manuscript and a letter of response (using a format designated by the Editorial Committee) online within one month. If they are not submitted by the deadline, the authors will be perceived as having no intention to publish the paper, and therefore, it will be rejected for publication.
  • If more than two reviewers recommend the paper to be 'Accepted' for publication or 'Acceptable after Revision' in the re-evaluation, it will be resubmitted to the Editorial Committee for a final decision.
  • If more than two reviewers decide the paper should be 'Rejected' in the re-review, it will be concluded as 'Rejected'.
7.3. Confirmation of Review Completion by the Editorial Committee
  • If the Editorial Committee receives all the review decisions from the three reviewers, it must immediately proceed with the process of 'Confirmation of Review Completion' and notify the paper contributor that the review is completed.
  • Once the authors are notified of the completion of the review, they may need to prepare a revised manuscript and a letter of response depending on the review comments and results provided by the reviewers. These must be submitted online to the Editorial Committee. In the letter of response (including both preliminary review and re-evaluation), the authors must explain in detail what has been revised in the manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments or recommendations, using the format designated by the KSWE.
7.4. Final Decision of the Editorial Committee
  • If the paper is deemed acceptable for publication in the preliminary review or the re-evaluation, the Editorial Committee will make the final decision on whether to publish the paper, taking into consideration the submitted manuscript, reviewers' comments, and the letter of response.
  • Even if two reviewers judge the paper as 'Acceptable' for publication, if the third reviewer decides it should be 'Rejected' (including a recommendation to publish as a technical note), or if the authors’ response does not adequately address the reasons for rejection, the Editorial Committee will appoint a fourth reviewer to evaluate the paper. If the fourth reviewer also judges the paper as 'Rejected' for publication, the Editorial Committee, acting as the fifth reviewer, will make the final decision by comprehensively reflecting on the results.
  • If the Editorial Committee has any inquiries related to the final decision-making process, it can send inquiries about the content of the manuscript, review decisions, and the letter of response to contributors or reviewers either in writing or by e-mail. The authors and reviewers must promptly reply to the inquiries.
7.5. The paper will be automatically concluded as rejected for publication, if it belongs to one of the following categories:
  • If the contributor does not submit a revised manuscript within 6 months from the date of receiving a request for revision.
  • If the contributor does not submit a letter of response within 2 months from the date of receiving an inquiry from the Editorial Committee.
8. Objection

Only in the case of the above Item ② of 7. Item 4 (Final Decision by the Editorial Committee), authors are allowed to raise an objection in writing to the review decision results within one month from the date of being notified of the review results, and this is permitted only once. In this case, the Editorial Committee will appoint a fifth reviewer from within the committee to make the final decision on whether to publish the paper or not.

9. Others

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

Copyright Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment

Sun-Jeong Moon Doosan Weve 1137, 81 Sambong-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03150, South Korea

kswe@kswe.org