| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
top_img
> 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
6th revision July 31, 2019

Article 1 (Purpose)

The regulations herein seek to regulate the peer review of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Radiation Protection and Research (JRPR, hereafter referred to as ‘the Journal’) according to the Authors’ Guidelines.

Article 2 (Selection of Reviewers)

The three Editors-in-Chief (EiCs) and the Managing Editor assign the submitted manuscript to an editor on the Editorial Committee of the Journal in consideration of the topic. Then, the assigned editor invites two experts as reviewers for peer review of the submitted manuscript. To ensure double-blind review, the list of reviewers is not announced.

Article 3 (Duty of Reviewers)

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does not provide his or her opinion within 30 days of the date of the review request, the review request may be withdrawn.

Article 4 (Criteria for Manuscript Review)

Manuscript review is performed under the following criteria. Reviewers should follow the “top-10/20/50%/bottom-50%” grading system in checking the following 6 criteria of the submitted manuscript (see below for these criteria). If the manuscript scores in the top 20% or better for all 6 criteria, it will be accepted; if it scores in the bottom 50% in more than half of the 6 criteria, it will be rejected. For any other scores, the reviewer could recommend publication, revision or rejection at discretion.

  1. 1. Appropriateness of topic
       · Does the submitted manuscript address important problems or issues in radiation protection and application?
  2. 2. Originality of contents
       · Are the topic, methods and overall approach presented in the submitted manuscript original and differentiated from existing studies?
  3. 3. Scientific importance
       · Do the contents of the manuscript carry significant scientific importance in radiation protection and application?
  4. 4. Adequacy of methods
       · Does the submitted manuscript take valid approaches and use adequate methods to successfully achieve the goal of the study?
  5. 5. Simplicity and clarity
       · Are the research methods clearly described and sufficiently detailed to provide transparency or permit the study to be replicated?
  6. 6. Potential if adequately revised
       · Does the submitted manuscript have potential to be improved and become significant with major changes, revisions, clarifications, and/or additional data?

Article 5 (Manuscript Review Process and Result)

  1. 1. The manuscript review is implemented in the following order: (a) Review of topic appropriateness by the Managing Editor or the editor assigned by the EiCs and the Managing Editor; (b) Review of the 6 criteria by the reviewers; (c) Detailed review of manuscript by the reviewers; (d) Publication decision by the Editorial Committee.
  2. 2. The EiCs and the Managing Editor determine whether the title, material, and contents of the submitted manuscript follow the Author’s Guidelines of the Journal; then, they assign an editor from the Editorial Committee for management of the review process; the editor shall invite two reviewers in the corresponding field and request reviews. If the Editorial Committee determines that the manuscript is not in line with the Author’s Guidelines of the Journal, the manuscript may not be accepted. For the manuscripts that meet the Author’s Guidelines and are qualified for review, the Managing Editor should affix a serial number to the submitted manuscript and assign it to an editor for management of the review process preliminarily outlined above.
  3. 3. The reviewers and review progress are not disclosed. Under the moderation of the Managing Editor, the reviewers and the author may exchange opinions. If both reviewers determined that the manuscript is acceptable for publication, the editor may decide that the manuscript can be published in the Journal. If the reviewers offered conflicting opinions, the editor may appoint a third reviewer, according to whose opinion, the editor may make a decision on publication.
  4. 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 shall be published in the subsequent available issue of the Journal. The Managing Editor may return a manuscript that, under his authority, is not in line with the Author’s Guidelines. A manuscript that has been rejected by the Editorial Committee is not to be reviewed again unless significant content changes have been made.

Article 6 (Manuscript Improvement)

The Editorial Committee sends the author a letter detailing the manuscript review result, including the reviewers’ comments and its own opinion. The author should submit a letter of response to address each of the comments following the format provided by the Editorial Committee, along with the revised manuscript reflecting the author’s responses, via the manuscript submission system. If the response letter with amended manuscript is not provided to the Editorial Committee within 6 months from the sending date of the review-result letter, the manuscript will be considered to have been withdrawn by the author.

E-Submission
Title page
Manuscript template
Author Checklist
Copyright transfer
Author's Index
JHPS
KARP
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