이전

  • 서브 비주얼

다음

Regulations for Evaluation

로케이션
HOME > Guidelines for Calling Papers > Regulations for Evaluation

Regulations for Evaluation


  1. The following are the regulations for evaluation and publication of a paper.
  2. The paper evaluators are appointed by the chief editor
  3. Submitted papers are evaluated by three paper evaluators, and then the chief editor decides to publish it or not after holding an editorial meetings.
  4. The list of the paper evaluators is not announced.
  5. The contents of evaluation are not announced to anyone except for the authors.
  6. The evaluation results are divided largely into “publication available(the original text, the text after revisions by the author, reevaluation after modification)” and “publication unavailable”

    ⒜ From the “Publication Available” list, the paper classified as "Original Text" may be released without proofreading.

    ⒝ From the “Publication Available” list, the paper classified as “Text after Revisions by Author” is released after the author modifies it according to advisement by paper evaluators.

    ⒞ From the “Publication Available” list, the paper classified as “Reevaluation after modification” is released after the author modifies it according to the indication of paper evaluators and the paper evaluators check it.

  7. If the paper evaluators acknowledge that the paper's content is found to have any of the following issues, the paper is judged as “publication after checking modifications” and the evaluators can concretely specify any necessary modifications or additions and ask the author to make such revisions.

    ⒜ There is no difference between the research results and results of former research.

    ⒝ The contents of research and the statements are not clear.

    ⒞ The explanations of tables and figures are not sufficient and are unclear.

    ⒟ In addition, it may need some other modifications.

  8. If the paper evaluators acknowledge that the paper's content is found to have any of the following issues, the paper is judged as “Resubmission after modification” and they should express the reasons concretely. But when the thesis is judged as “Resubmission after modification”, the whole evaluation process will be the same for the newly submitted paper.

    ⒜ It does not exhibit clear originality.

    ⒝ The title, purpose, content and conclusion of the paper were not described consistently and in a unified way.

    ⒞ The paper's data and information, along with its interpretation, may need restructuring with other valid theory and perspectives.

    ⒟ In addition, in the case that it is deemed that the content and level of theory will be appropriate for journal publication after considerable modifications are made.

  9. If the paper evaluators acknowledge that the paper's content is found to have any of the following issues, the paper is judged as “publication unavailable” and the reasons should be concretely expressed.

    ⒜ The content of the research is judged as being not original.

    ⒝ The nature and level of the paper does not match that of this scientific journal.

    ⒞ It is inappropriate to publish in this scientific journal because of some other reasons.

  10. If the editorial conference acknowledges that the paper does not conform the submission rules, the thesis can not be received.
  11. The paper for which two or more paper examiners judge as “publication available” is published and the paper for which two or more paper examiners judge as “publication unavailable” is not published. If the paper is judged to be “publication available”, it can be modified according to the opinions of the paper examiner who judge “publication unavailable”. And the other paper examiners should be notified with this information.
  12. The editorial conference should convene to decide on publication of a paper each time. The categories below are discussed in the editorial conferences.

    ⑴ validity of examination results

    ⑵ deviations in adjustment of examination results

    ⑶ In addition, the final decision on choosing whether to publish a paper

  13. The appointed paper evaluators should judge the thesis within 10 days. If the appointed paper evaluators don't submit their evaluaation results within 30 days, their appointment as evaluators can be terminated.
  14. Progression of the paper evaluation is shown online, the contributor can check their evaluation results and hand in their paper again which reflects the opinion of paper evaluators within 7 days.
  15. Paper evaluation standards are as follow:

    Paper Evaluation Criteria

    1. Are the research topic and research issues appropriate?
    2. Are the research need of study, the purpose of the study, and content of study clearly stated?
    3. Are the research use valid and reliable research methods?
    4. Are the contents from research layed out in a logical and objective way?
    5. Is there a consistent relationship between the results and purposes of the research, with that of its conclusions?
    6. Are summation and abstract concise and clearly stated?
    7. Are contents and methods of the study creative and innovative?
    8. How can the research contribute to the development of the Practical Arts Education field?
    9. Is the paper's structure and composition suitable for research?
    10. Are the editing systems, citations, and references in compliance with writing regulations for papers?
    Evaluation Results
    • Very good
    • Good
    • Just ok
    • Inadequate
    • Very Poor

    Comprehensive opinion
    of evaluation
    • Publication Available
    • Publication after Revisions
    • Re-evaluation after Revisions
    • Publication unavailable
  16. Decision of whether or not to allow publication of paper in research journal
    A paper review committee consisting of 3 members gives an evaluation of ‘publication available’, ‘Publication available after revisions’, ‘re-evaluation after revisions’, ‘publication unavailable’ on the evaluation report. Taking into consideration the paper evaluation the authorization and order for publication will be give by the editorial board, and any other situations which are not covered by the editorial regulations will be handle by the editor in chief.
  17. Security of Paper Evaluation

    Personal information that is known from the contents of the paper evaluation, or through the process of evaluation, must not be leaked to anyone outside of the evaluation committee nor should it be officially made public.

  18. Any situations which are not covered by these regulations will be handled by the Editor-in-chief and will be reported to the editorial board.