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.

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.

• ① Whether the manuscript is not adequate to the journal's purpose and scope,
• ② Whether the quantity, composition or content of the manuscript is not adequate,
• ③ 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.

• 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 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:

  • 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.
• 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:

  • 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,
  • ③ 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:

  • ① Adequacy of the overall composition.
  • ② Clarity of the purpose and results.
  • ③ Relation to existing research and technologies.
  • ④ Adequacy of the expressions used in the sentences.
  • ⑤ 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:

  • 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 value in terms of practical use,
  • ④ Whether it presents a future prospect by systematizing the research in the concerned field.

• 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.

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.

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.

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