| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
> Regulations > Regulations for Peer Review of Manuscript
Regulations for Peer Review of Manuscript

Approved February 13, 1997
1st revision April 29, 2004
2nd revision November 23, 2006
3th revision August 27, 2007
4th revision June 23, 2008
5th revision March 22, 2016

Article 1 (Purpose)

The regulations herein seek to regulate the matters regarding the review of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Radiation Protection and Research (hereafter referred as the Journal) following the Authors’ Guidelines of the Journal.

Article 2 (Selection of Reviewers)

  1. The Editor-in-Chief selects two experts as reviewers for peer review of the submitted manuscript with the Editorial Committee. To ensure double blind review, the list of reviewers is not announced in principal; provided that, in order to inform the appropriateness and fairness of the review process, the list is announced once in the last issue of the Journal for a given year.
  2. In the event that the Editor-in-Chief is one of the author(s) of the submitted manuscript, the Editorial Committee selects one of the committee members to process the manuscript representing the Editorial Committee.

Article 3 (Duty of Reviewers)

Reviewers should review a requested manuscript within 15 days from the request via the manuscript submission system and submit their review comments in the manuscript submission system. In the event that a reviewer does not provide his or her opinion within 30 days from the review request, the review request may be withdrawn.

Article 4 (Criteria for Manuscript Review)

Manuscript review is performed under the following criteria; Reviewers follow the grading system of top 10%, top 20%, top 50% and bottom 50% to check the following 7 aspects for the submitted manuscript. If the manuscript records the top 20% for whole the 7 aspects, the manuscript may be accepted. If the manuscript records the bottom 50% in more than half of the 7 aspects, the manuscript may be rejected. For the other cases, the reviewer could make a decision of publication, improvement, rejection with the review process for the manuscript.

  1. Appropriateness of topic: Is the topic of a submitted manuscript contributable to radiation protection and its development in general?
  2. Originality of contents: Are the topic, methods and overall approach original and differentiated from the existing studies?
  3. Scientific importance: Do the contents dealt with by the manuscript include significant scientific importance in radiation protection?
  4. Adequacy of methods: Was the methods presented in the submitted manuscript to achieve the goal of the study designed adequately?
  5. Simplicity and clarity: Is the description of study simple, clear and not abstract?
  6. Overall priority for publication: Is the priority for publication of the manuscript high in terms of significance and urgency?
  7. Potential if adequately revised: Is the possibility that the submitted manuscript is improved through the manuscript review process high?

Article 5 (Manuscript Review Process and Result)

  1. The manuscript review is implemented in the order of (a) Review on topic appropriateness by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor; (b) Review on the 7 aspects by the reviewers; (c) Detailed review of manuscript by the reviewers; and (d) Publication decision by the Editorial Committee.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief reviews if the title, material, contents of a submitted manuscript follow the Author’s Guidelines of the Journal; then, request review to two reviewers recommended by a member the Editorial Committee in the corresponding field. If the Editorial Committee recognizes the manuscript is not in line with the Author’s Guidelines, the manuscript may not be accepted. For the manuscripts accepted for review, the Editorial Committee should assign a serial number and make a review request to the reviewers.
  3. Reviewer and review progress are not disclosed. Under the moderation of the Managing Editor, the reviewers and the author may exchange opinions. If both reviewers decide the manuscript is acceptable for publication, the manuscript can be published in the Journal. If the reviewers offered conflicting opinions, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a third reviewer and according to the third reviewer’s opinion, the Editor-in-Chief may make decision on publication.
  4. Authors should reply to the decisions of the Editorial Committee on acceptance for publication, improvement, rejection, etc. as soon as possible. Manuscripts deemed acceptable for publication after final improvement are published in the subsequent available issue of the Journal. The Managing Editor may return a manuscript that is not in line with the Author’s Guidelines in his authority. A manuscript which has been rejected by the Editorial Committee are not to be reviewed again afterwards, in principle.

Article 7 (Expedite Review)

In the event of an expedite review, reviewers may receive a set amount of review charge. The charge amount is to be set by the Editorial Committee and noticed on the author’s guideline.

Title page
Title page(ko)
Manuscript template
Manuscript template(ko)
Author Checklist
Author Checklist(ko)
Copyright transfer
Copyright transfer(ko)
Author's Index
Editorial Office
319, HIT, 22-2, Majo-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2297-9775   Fax: +82-2-2297-9776
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Copyright © by Korean Association for Radiation Protection. All rights reserved.      Developed in M2Community