Guideline for the Review, Judgement and Publication

 

 

 

Enacted in June 2022

 

 

Article 1. (Purpose) The purpose of this guideline is to regulate the review of submitted papers to the journal in accordance with article 4 of the KIBSE articles of Incorporation.

 

Article 2. (Eligibility for Submission) At least one author shall be the member of KIBSE.

 

Article 3. (Publication date and Paper Submission)

1. The journal is published four times a year, and the publication date is the last day of each quarter.

2. Paper can be submitted by authors to the online submission system at any time.

3. The author(s) shall submit one original file of the manuscript through the submission system.

4. When it is impossible to directly upload the paper because the size of the paper exceeds the limit, it can be submitted by e-mail.

 

Article 4. (Subject Classification) The submitted paper is classified by field of expertise (bridge, structure) by the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Article 5. (Responsible for Review Work)

1. Twenty editorial committee members each belong to two specialized fields (bridge, structure) and two editor secretarys are in charge of one.

2. The each specialized field editor is in charge of recommending the reviewer, the editorial secretary is in charge of requesting and collecting the reviewers, and the Editor-in-Chief is in charge of selecting three final reviewers.

3. If the editor in charge is included among the authors of the submitted paper, the person concerned is not recommended for recommendation, and the editorial secretary selects the insufficient number of recommendations.

4. If an editorial secretary is included, the Editor-in-Chief is in charge of recommending the reviewers, and if the Editor-in-Chief is included, the editorial secretary in the relevant specialized field is in charge of selection.

 

Article 6. (Qualification of the Reviewer) The regular member of our institute having doctorial degree or equivalent is qualified to be a reviewer; a professional who is not our member can also be the reviewer in a special circumstance.

 

Article 7. (Selection of the Reviewer)

1. One editorial committee member in each professional area recommends one reviewer to the editorial secretary and the secretary collects the recommended reviewers and submits the list to the Editor-in-Chief of the editorial committee.

2. The Editor-in-Chief of the editorial committee selects three reviewers among recommended reviewers and asks them for paper evaluation.

3. In that case, the editing member in charge or the editorial secretary can be chosen as a reviewer but they cannot be reviewers of a paper that they are included as authors.

 

Article 8. (Review Duration) If the reviewer does not submit the opinion after the evaluation within 15 days of being selected as a reviewer, the request of the review can be cancelled. In that case, the paper should be returned to our institute and the chairman of the editorial committee can select another reviewer to ask for the review.

 

Article 9. (Review Method) The review is divided into pre-review and review. The pre-review is the process of deciding the suitability of the submission guideline by the editorial secretary; and the review is the process of deciding the publication of the submitted paper by the selected three reviewers.

 

Article 10. (Review Judgement)

1. The paper that is judged as unsuitable during the pre-review is returned to the author and the paper which passed the pre review will go through the review process.

2. The reviewer should review the paper based on the review items; Able to publish, Able to publish after modification, Need re-review after modification, Unable to publish and clearly state the opinion of the reviewer within 15 days of the request.

3. The criteria of the judgment should be as follows and in case of ‘Unable to publish’, the reviewer must specify the reason on the paper review report.

1) Able to publish: Paper that can be published without modification.

2) Able to publish after modification: Paper that needs a modification because the contents of the paper or the system are insufficient (It is a publishable paper and the author can decide on his/her own whether the paper is modified under the recommendation of the reviewer)

3) Need to re-review after modification: The contents of the paper and the structure is too ambiguous and insufficient so the author should amend the paper under the request of the reviewers; and after the modification, the paper needs to go under re-review by the reviewers.

4) Unable to publish

① Paper that groundlessly copied already published paper

② Paper that has some error or is not clear on the research results

③ Paper that has no significant difference compared to already published research results

④ Paper that is not unique

⑤ Paper that is not appropriate with the description or logical system

 

Article 11. (Conditions of Able to Publish)

1. In case of being judged as ‘Able to publish’ by three reviewers at the first review

2. In case of being judged as ‘Able to publish’ by two reviewers after re-reviewing the modified paper

 

Article 12. (Condition of Unable to Publish)

1. In case of not satisfying the article 11 (Condition of judging ‘Able to publish’)

2. In case of not submitting the modifications to the editorial committee within six months after the day of notifying the review results (However, it can be exceptional if the submitter asks for the delay of the duration of the modification within the 6 months in a written form and the committee undergoes the deliberation.)

 

Article 13. (Raising the Objection) If the author has an objection on the results of the review, he/she can raise an objection to the editorial committee in a written form within 30 days from getting the notification of ‘Unable to publish’. After that, the chairman of the committee examines the application form of the objection and the editorial committee gives a final decision on the publication after a discussion.

 

Article 14. (Publication Decision)

1. Whether or not to publish a submitted paper is decided by the Editorial Board according to the results of the review.

2. Papers that has passed the judgement are given priority for publication, but in principle, they are published in the order they are received.

 

Article 14. (Revision) This guideline is revised by the resolution of the editorial committee and reported to the board of directors.

 

Addendum (Effective Date)

 

This guideline takes effect from the date it is reported to the board of directors.