Enacted Mar 15, 1997
Revised Jan 14, 1999
Revised Jan 20, 2006
Revised Jun 04, 2009
Revised Feb 10, 2011
Revised May 27, 2014

Revised Dec 13, 2021

 

1. Purpose

These guidelines establish standardized criteria for evaluating manuscripts (including research papers, discussions, and discussion responses) submitted to the Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Journal”) to determine their suitability for publication.

 

2. Review Areas

2.1 Manuscripts shall be reviewed within the research areas designated by the Society, based on the field selected by the authors at submission.

2.2 If the selected field does not correspond to the content of the manuscript, the Editorial Committee may reassign the field after review.

2.3 If at least two reviewers determine that a manuscript falls outside the aims and scope of the Journal, it shall be rejected.

 

3. Reviewers

3.1 Research Papers

Research manuscripts shall be reviewed by three experts in the relevant research area. Exceptions may apply as specified in Section 7.2.

3.2 Discussions and Discussion Responses

Manuscripts submitted as a Discussion or a Discussion Response shall be reviewed by at least one of the reviewers of the original paper.

3.3 Appointment of Reviewers

Reviewers shall be appointed by the Editorial Committee. If an appointed reviewer is unable to undertake the review, the reviewer must promptly notify the committee and return the manuscript.

3.4 Expedited Review

Manuscripts requiring expedited review may, with the approval of the Editorial Committee, be assigned to three qualified reviewers.

 

4. Review Contents

Reviewers shall objectively evaluate submitted manuscripts based on originality, validity, completeness, and applicability to determine if they meet the required scholarly standards.

4.1 Originality

Reviewers shall ensure the work is not derived from previously published or well-known findings and satisfies at least one of the following:

① Demonstrates originality in topic, content, or methodology.

② Addresses significant academic or societal issues.

③ Makes a substantial contribution to understanding a specific phenomenon.

④ Provides valuable technical insights or practical experience related to planning, design, or construction.

⑤ Offers a comprehensive and timely review that presents new perspectives.

4.2 Validity

Reviewers shall ensure the manuscript is reliable and free of critical errors based on the following:

① Whether relevant references have been appropriately cited and fairly assessed.

② Whether the conclusions are logically supported by comparison with existing technologies or prior research.

③ Whether experimental and analytical conditions are clearly described.

4.3 Completeness

Reviewers shall ensure the manuscript is presented accurately and concisely in accordance with the guidelines, focusing on:

① The appropriateness of the overall structure.

② The clarity of the objectives and results.

③ The relevance to existing research and technology.

④ The appropriateness of linguistic expression.

⑤ The clarity and appropriateness of tables and figures.

4.4 Applicability

Reviewers shall ensure the content has academic or practical value and satisfies at least one of the following:

① The topic and content are timely.

② The findings have high applicability, utility, or potential for future development.

③ The technical results are valuable for professional practice.

④ The study systemizes the field and offers prospects for future research.

 

5. Review Decision

Reviewers shall evaluate the scholarly contribution based on the criteria in Section 4 and the standards of previously published articles. The final decision is categorized as follows:

5.1 Acceptable as Submitted

The manuscript requires no revision and is suitable for immediate publication.

5.2 Acceptable after Revision

(Editorial) Minor linguistic or formatting corrections (e.g., typographical edits).

(Content) Minor substantive revisions where publication may proceed without further review after approval by the Editorial Committee.

5.3 Re-review after Major Revision

Required if substantial revisions are necessary. A manuscript may undergo re-review no more than twice.

5.4 Unpublishable (Reject)

① Manuscripts that involve plagiarism or academic misconduct.

② Manuscripts containing critical errors or presenting unclear results.

③ Manuscripts whose findings do not differ substantially from prior publications.

④ Manuscripts lacking originality or scholarly contribution.

⑤ Manuscripts with inadequate organization or logic.

5.5 Expedited Review Decision

① Authors may recommend up to five potential reviewers capable of an impartial evaluation.

② Decisions under expedited review are limited to "Acceptable (including after revision)" or "Reject."

 

6. Review Deadline

Reviewers shall, in principle, return the review results within three weeks from the request date. For expedited reviews, results must be returned within 10 days.

 

7. Handling of Review Results

7.1 Publication

A research manuscript shall be accepted for publication if:

① A majority (2 or more) of reviewers recommend acceptance in the initial review.

② A majority (2 or more) of reviewers recommend acceptance after re-evaluating the revised manuscript.

7.2 Re-review

A manuscript shall undergo re-review under the following conditions:

① A majority (2 or more) of reviewers request major revisions during the initial review.

② Publication is not approved by a majority, but re-review is requested. The manuscript will be re-evaluated by two reviewers.

7.3 Return (Unpublishable)

A manuscript shall be rejected and returned to the author if:

① A majority (2 or more) of reviewers deem it unsuitable in the initial review.

② A majority (2 or more) of reviewers deem the revised manuscript unsuitable after re-review.

 

8. Submission of Revised Manuscripts and Responses

8.1 Revised Manuscripts

Upon a decision of "Acceptable after Revision" or "Re-review," the author must submit a revised manuscript reflecting the reviewers' comments.

8.2 Author Responses

Authors must submit a detailed response addressing all reviewer comments, regardless of whether a re-review is required.

8.3 Revision Period

The revised manuscript and response must be submitted within six months of notification. If no revision is submitted within one year, the review process shall be automatically terminated. (Applicable to manuscripts submitted after May 27, 2009).

8.4 Conditions for Rejection

If the revised manuscript is not submitted within six months without an extension approved by the Editorial Committee, the manuscript shall be deemed rejected.

 

9. Objections

Authors may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Committee if they object to a review decision. The Editor-in-Chief shall review the appeal and consult with the Editorial Committee for a final decision.

 

10. Other Provisions

① Matters not specified herein shall be determined by resolution of the Editorial Committee.

② The Peer review process shall be periodically improved based on committee resolutions and feedback collected via the Society’s website.