Enacted Sep. 1, 2007Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of the following regulations is to establish a fair review standard by setting forth the review procedures for papers, case analyses, and other manuscripts submitted for publication in [Chonbuk Law Review] published by the Jeonbuk National University Law Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the "Institute").
Revised Aug. 1, 2009
Revised Dec. 1, 2019
Revised May 1, 2020
Revised Aug. 1, 2009
Revised Dec. 1, 2019
Revised May 1, 2020
Article 2 (Review Subject)
- ① Papers to be published in [Chonbuk Law Review] must be papers that have not been previously published in other academic journals or other publications and have been prepared in compliance with the submission regulations of the Institute.
- ② Papers requested for submission shall be limited to those that satisfy each of the following subparagraphs.
- 1. Papers presented at academic events of the Institute
- 2. Papers requested by the Institute
- 3. Papers by former and current professors at accredited domestic and foreign universities
- 4. Papers by doctorate holders
- 5. Papers by certified legal practitioners
- 6. Papers by graduate students recommended by at least one (1) law professor
- ③ In the case of Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Paragraph 2, the review process may be skipped by the decision of the Editorial Board.
- 1. Timeliness of the topic
- 2. The novelty of the research perspective and its fit with the specialization of the Institute
- 3. Academic contribution and consistency of research results
- 4. Evaluation consensus
- 5. Other matters determined by the Editorial Board
- ① As a general rule, a submitted manuscript shall be reviewed by three (3) reviewers appointed by the Editorial Board.
- ② As a general rule, reviewers shall request the review of a paper from a doctorate holder in the field of the paper or a researcher who has published a previous paper identical or similar to the title of the paper.
- ③ The Editorial Board may request from those appointed as reviewers the submission of a list of research achievements for the last three (3) years if necessary for the fair appointment of reviewers.
- ④ The reviewers shall examine the submitted papers according to the review standard in Article 3, prepare the results in a review report in <Attachment 1>, and submit it to the Editorial Board.
- ⑤ The reviewers shall indicate the title of the submitted paper, its review summary, whether it meets the review standard, and a general comment on the review report, and affix their names and seal it or provide signatures.
- ⑥ The number of submitted papers to be reviewed per reviewer may not exceed five (5) of the scheduled issue of the publication.
- ① The papers to be reviewed must be reviewed without the author being disclosed.
- ② Reviewers may not review their papers, and those who belong to the same institution as the contributor or have other significant reasons to cause concerns about the fairness of the review may not be selected as reviewers.
- ③ The reviewers shall determine the review results as one (1) of the following and report it to the Editorial Board.
- 1. Publish without revision
- 2. Publish after revision
- 3. Re-review after revision
- 4. Unable to publish
- ④ If the review results fall under Subparagraph 2, 3, or 4 of Paragraph 3, the reviewers must clarify the specific evaluation summary in the review comments.
- ⑤ If the review results of the reviewers are different, the majority opinion shall prevail.
- ⑥ If one (1) or more of the reviewers determines the paper as “unable to publish”, it will be treated as disqualified.
- ⑦ The Editorial Board shall decide whether to publish each submitted paper based on the review results of each reviewer. The quorum of the Editorial Board shall be the attendance of a majority of its members, and the quorum for deciding whether to publish a submitted paper shall be a majority of the members present.
- ① The Editorial Board shall decide whether or not to publish each submitted paper based on the review results of each reviewer, and the decision to publish shall be: "acceptable", "publish after revision", "re-review after revision", and "unable to publish".
- ② The decision on whether to publish shall be based on the standard in <Attachment 2>, but a decision different from the standard may be made within reason by considering the number of submissions, the academic value of the submitted paper, and the publication rate.
- ③ Regarding a paper for which the decision "re-review after revision" has been made, a period of at least three (3) days must be given to submit the revised paper with the revised items attached. If the contributor does not submit the revised paper within the deadline without a justifiable reason, a decision of "unable to publish" shall be made.
- ④ As a general rule, the review of the revised paper shall be made by the reviewer who presented the opinion of "re-review after revision" or "unable to publish"; however, the Editorial Board may request the Editorial Board members or other persons to re-review when it is deemed reasonable. The reviewers who were requested to review the revised paper shall prepare a report in the form in <Attachment 3>, and the review results shall be indicated as "publishable", "publish conditional on revision", or "unable to publish".
- ⑤ The Editorial Board makes a final decision on whether to publish based on the results of the re-review.
- ① The Editor-in-Chief must individually notify the authors of each submitted paper of the review results.
- ② Contributors who have been notified of the "publish conditional on revision" decision must submit the revised paper by the specified deadline. The Editorial Board may decide "unable to publish" when it is determined that the contributor did not submit the revised paper without justifiable reasons or was significantly negligent in the revision.
- ③ Contributors who have been notified of the "unable to publish" decision may file an objection to the Editorial Board by specifying the reason in detail.
- ④ The Editorial Board shall review the objection and notify the objectioner of the decision to accept or reject the objection by specifying the reason.
- ⑤ When an objection is accepted, a new reviewer must be selected to proceed with the review process; however, if it is difficult to proceed with the review procedure considering the publication date of the issue, the review of the paper shall be processed as a submission for the next issue.
Article 7 (Reporting Academic Journal Publications) The Editor-in-Chief must attend the Executive Committee and report major issues related to journal publication, such as paper submission, review, and publication.
These regulations shall take effect starting Sep. 1, 2007.
These regulations shall take effect starting Aug. 1, 2009.
These regulations shall take effect starting Jan. 1, 2020.
These regulations shall take effect starting Jun. 1, 2020.