About the Journal | Editor Board | Guide for Authors | Journal Issue | Submission |
Sorry.
You are not permitted to access the full text of articles.
If you have any questions about permissions,
please contact the Society.
죄송합니다.
회원님은 논문 이용 권한이 없습니다.
권한 관련 문의는 학회로 부탁 드립니다.
This Manuscript Review and Approval Policy (hereinafter this “Policy”) applies to the review of research articles, review articles, and other manuscripts submitted to the Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment (hereinafter the “Society”).
1. The review process, selection results, publication order and printing system of all manuscripts published in the Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment (hereinafter the “Journal”) fall under the sole discretion of the Editorial Committee. Barring exceptional circumstances, the Society shall not return a manuscript to a presenter once the manuscript is submitted. However, in the case of an unpublishable manuscript, the Society may return it to the presenter upon the request of the latter.
2. In cases where the Society receives a manuscript, the Society shall notify the author of the reception details.
1. The Society shall request reviewers to review submitted manuscripts on-line.
2. Manuscripts submitted under Paragraph 1 must be promptly reviewed under the following procedures.
1. The handling editor shall be selected by the editor-in-chief among relevant editors considering their academic fields and majors.
2. The submitted manuscript shall be reviewed by three experts in the relevant academic fields.
1. Reviewers shall complete the review within three weeks from their appointment and submit their review opinions to the Editorial Committee.
2. When the review opinions are not delivered to the Society within the specified period without a particular reason, the Society shall send an official reminder to the reviewer under the name of the editor-in-chief. The Society may replace the reviewer with another one if the reviewer comments are not delivered to the Society within two weeks from the day of sending the official reminder.
3. Upon receiving comments of reviewers, the Editorial Committee shall notify the author of the review results within a week.
Under a Fast Track Review Program, the first round review of a manuscript is completed within two weeks from the manuscript reception to expedite the decision on whether to publish the manuscript. However, the decision may be delayed in cases where the manuscript is subject to “rereview” and it is unclear whether it will be published.
1. The list of the reviewers are strictly confidential, and the identity of the author shall be disclosed to the reviewers at the time of the appointment.
2. Information regarding review results shall not be disclosed except for the author of the reviewed manuscript.
3. A manuscript may be reviewed by two reviewers selected by the Editorial Committee and an editor-in-chief or an editor can join as a reviewer.
4. Reviewers shall assign one of the following grades to the reviewed manuscript.
4.1 Publishable: The manuscript is publishable without revisions.
4.2 Publishable after revisions: The manuscript is publishable after minor revisions and confirmation by the Editorial Committee without further review by reviewers.
4.3 Re-review after revisions: The manuscript requires major revisions or improvements, and the results of revisions and improvements need to be reviewed by reviewers.
4.4 Unpublishable: The manuscript is inappropriate or inadequate for publication in the Journal.
5.1 In cases where both reviewers determine that the manuscript falls under Paragraph 4.1, the manuscript shall be published after final confirmation by the Editorial Committee, and an official letter shall be sent to the author.
5.2 In cases where two reviewers determine that the manuscript falls under Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, 4.1 and 4.3, 4.2 and 4.3, 4.2 and 4.2, or 4.3 and 4.3, respectively, the Editorial Committee shall notify the author of the results, and the author shall submit a response and revised version of the manuscript. If necessary, re-review shall be proceeded.
5.3 In cases where two reviewers determine that the manuscript falls under Paragraph 4.3 and 4.4, respectively, the Editorial Committee shall determine whether to publish the manuscript. If the Editorial Committee decides that the manuscript falls under Paragraph 4.3, the author shall submit a response and revised version of the manuscript, and re-review shall be proceeded (in such cases, the author shall also submit a response regarding the “unpublishable” opinion, the reviewer who gave a “4.4” grade shall be excluded in the second round review, and the Editorial Committee shall proceed with the final review).
5.4 In cases where two reviewers determine that the manuscript falls under Paragraph 4.1 and 4.4, respectively, the Editorial Committee shall determine whether to publish the manuscript.
5.5 In cases where both reviewers determine that the manuscript falls under Paragraph 4.4, the Editorial Committee shall process the manuscript as unpublishable, and an official letter shall be sent (in such cases, the author may file an objection).
The Editorial Committee shall decide whether to publish a manuscript based on the opinions of reviewers and the Editorial Committee. In cases where the author does not submit a revised manuscript without a particular reason within six months upon receiving a revision request, the manuscript shall be deemed unpublishable. In cases where the author wishes to resubmit the manuscript after the period mentioned above, the manuscript must be reviewed according to the same procedure applicable to new submissions. However, the revision period may be extended upon the approval of the handling editor in cases where the author requires a significant amount of time to revise the manuscript on account of additional experiments or other reasons.
A manuscript falling under any of the following subparagraphs is determined as unpublishable.
1. A reviewer determines that the content of the manuscript falls under any of the following:
1.1 The manuscript is found to contain wrongful content, such as plagiarized content;
1.2 The originality of the manuscript is unclear, and its method or reasoning is deemed inappropriate; or
1.3 The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication in the Journal for other reasons;
In cases where the author disagrees with the review decision, the author may file for a written objection to the Editorial Committee within a month from the date of the final decision. Upon receiving a written objection, the editor-in-chief shall review the objection, process it personally or in consultation with the Editorial Committee, and notify the author of the result in writing.
Barring exceptional circumstances, the accepted manuscript must be promptly published.
1. In cases where a serious scientific error is claimed in a published manuscript by the author, an editor-in-chief, an editor, or the relevant reviewer, the Editorial Committee may review the issue and decide whether to withdraw the manuscript. In the case of the withdrawal, the Editorial Committee shall specify concrete reasons for the decision.
2. In the case of a research ethics violation, the matter shall be referred to the Research Ethics Committee without delay. Sanctions under Article 9 of the Management Guidelines for Academic Journal Publication of the National Research Foundation of Korea shall apply when the research ethics violation is confirmed.
※ The Research Ethics Regulation and Research Ethics Committee Regulation of KOSAE can be found in the Society’s Articles of Association and bylaws.
Copyright ⓒ 2022 Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment
204, (Pirun-dong) 102, Sajik-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03169, Korea
Tel : +82-2-387-0242(1400), Fax : +82-2-387-1881,
Homepage: http://www.kosae.or.kr, E-mail: webmaster@kosae.or.kr