Regulations for Manuscript HOME > Instruction for Authors > Regulations for Manuscript

Regulations for Manuscript Review and Publication
of the Journal of the Korean Society of Broadcast Engineers

  • Established on February 15, 1995
  • Partially amended on March 22, 2000
  • Partially amended on March 18, 2002
  • Partially amended on January 17, 2003
  • Partially amended on February 24, 2006
  • Partially amended on July 1, 2006
  • Partially amended on June 15, 2012
  • Partially amended on February 19, 2016
  • Partially amended on January 04, 2019
  • Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these regulations is to specify all matters regarding the review and publication process of a research paper, a letter paper, or a tutorial paper(hereinafter “papers”) submitted for possible publication to the Journal of the Korean Society of Broadcast Engineers(hereinafter “the journal”).
  • Article 2 (Reviewer)

    ① Each paper shall be reviewed by three reviewers.

    ② Reviewers shall be broadcast engineering experts appointed by the editor-in-chief from the editorial board of the journal. In cases in which some expertise needs to be solicited beyond the editorial board, experts outside the editorial board may be appointed as reviewers. Before sending a paper to a reviewer, the secretariat shall check with each appointed reviewer to determine whether he or she can review the paper. If any appointed reviewer refuses to review a paper, the editor-in-chief shall appoint a new reviewer.

    ③ In the case of a special feature paper, the editor-in-chief may delegate his authority to the guest chief editor.

  • Article 3 (Pre-qualifying examination)

    ① The editorial board shall select examiners after reviewing the qualifications of the contributor and the paper contributed to.

    ② Among the papers contributed, those that are not suitable for the『Journal of the Korean Society of Broadcast Engineers』or those that did not observe the contribution regulations may be rejected prior to the examination process. When a paper is rejected, the author will be notified of the reason for not accepting the paper in writing (e.g., e-mail).

  • Article 4 (Double-blind examination) Papers shall be examined mutually anonymously between the authors and examiners.
  • Article 5 (Review process) principle, review process for a submitted paper shall be as follows.

    ① Reviewer selection and request for are view(within two weeks of the submission)

    ② First-phase review and initial judgment(within three weeks of the request for a review)

    ③ Request for revision if the paper needs to be revised (immediately after the receipt of the first-phase review and the initial judgment results)

    ④ Receipt of the revised paper(within two months of the request for revision)

    ⑤ Request for a second-phase review of the revised paper(within two weeks of the submission of the revised paper)

    ⑥ Second-phase review(within three weeks of the request for a second-phase review)

    ⑦ Final judgment on whether to publish the paper(immediately after the receipt of the second-phase review results)

    Steps ③~⑥ shall be implemented only when necessary. Detailed regulations and methods for the individual step are as presented below.

  • Article 6 (Review contents) Reviewers shall objectively review papers to determine whether they are at an appropriate level in their relevant areas considering creativity, validity of theories, composition, and usability of the results. In the case of tutorial papers, the clarification of the contents of theories, systematic organization of theories, objective assessment and comparison of representative theories, and introduction of representative references and annotations shall be considered for assessment bases. Each issue of the journal can publish at most one tutorial paper.
  • Article 7 (Judgment of review results) Reviewers shall assess the level of each paper considering the review contents under Article 4 and the quality of papers previously published in the journal thus far.

    ① Publishable: the paper is suitable for publication as is without any revision.

    ② Publishable after revisions: minor revisions of the paper’s wording and content are required.

    ③ Second-phase review after revisions: matters to be revised are judged important or the paper is judged as requiring considerable supplementation.

    ④ Not publishable: the paper is judged unsuitable for publication.

    ⑤ Publishing in other journals is recommended: the nature of the paper does not conform to this journal. However, letter papers shall be judged in only one of three ways: publishable, publishable after revision, and not publishable. In this case, if the paper is judged publishable, the wording of certain passages may be revised before the final manuscript is submitted. If the revised or final manuscript is not submitted within two months of the author being notified of the revision request (and no valid reason is provided), the paper shall be judged not publishable in all cases.

  • Article 8 (Notice of review results and replacement of reviewers) In principle each reviewer shall respond with the review results within three weeks of the request for review. However, the review period may be extended up to two times (by one week per time) when necessary by a prior notice. If the review time limit passes without a prior notice or five weeks pass after the date of the request, the editor-in-chief may cancel the request for review and replace the reviewer with another reviewer.
  • Article 9 (No reflection of poor examination and evaluation) When an examination and evaluation of a paper is judged as remarkably poor, the relevant examination and evaluation will not be reflected on the judgment of the examination’s results.
  • Article 10 (Handling of review results)

    ① Classification of the review results

    1. In principle, the publication of a paper shall be confirmed if two or more out of the three reviewers in the “first-phase review” evaluate the paper “publishable” or “publishable after revisions.”

    2. If two or more out of the three reviewers in the “first-phase review” evaluate a paper “not publishable,” the initial (actually final) judgment is “not suitable for publication” regardless of the result of the remaining reviewer, if any.

    3. Each paper evaluated otherwise shall undergo a “second-phase review” process. The final judgment is “suitable for publication” if the paper obtains evaluations equivalent to “publishable” from two or more reviewers out of the three reviewers participating both in the “first-phase review” and in the “second-phase review.” However, if two or more reviewers evaluate a paper “not publishable,” the final judgment will be “not suitable for publication.”

    4. In principle, if two out of the three reviewers evaluate a paper “publishable” and the remaining one reviewer evaluates it “second-phase review after revisions” either in the “first-phase review” or in the “second-phase review,” the initial/final judgment is “suitable for publication.” However, the submitter shall submit the results of maximal revisions or supplementation referring to matters pointed out in the review requiring “second-phase review after revisions” and a written reply to the review comments. The editor-in-chief should send the related documents to the relevant reviewer who requested the second-phase review to hear the reviewer’s opinion after checking the revisions, and if the reviewer then evaluates the paper “publishable,” the final judgment will be “suitable for publication.”

    5. Notwithstanding clauses 1 and 3 specifying cases in which publication in the journal is confirmed, if one out of the three reviewers evaluates a paper as being “not publishable,” the judgment shall be made by the editorial board, and the submitter and the reviewer who evaluated the paper “not publishable” shall be notified of the result. If the matters pointed out are easily revisable, the judgment will be “second-phase review after revisions.” Otherwise, the judgment will be “not suitable for publication.”

    ② Request for revision and second-phase review

    1. If the initial judgment is “publishable after revisions” or “second-phase review after revisions,” the society shall notify the submitter of the result of the review and request revisions of the paper.

    2. The submitter who receives the “request for revisions” should revise the paper reflecting the matters pointed out by the reviewers. The submitter shall submit the revised paper within two months of the date of receipt of the request for revisions.

    3. In principle, the same reviewers who provided the first-phase review results on the paper should review the revised manuscript of the paper judged “second-phase review after revisions.”

    ③ Others

    1. Considering “Publishing in other journals is recommended” has the same effect as “not publishable,” clauses ① and ② shall be applied.

  • Article 11 (Objections raised by submitters) Submitters may raise formal objections against the review judgment in a writing to the editorial board. The editor-in-chief shall review the formal objections received in the writing, and the editorial board shall deliberate on the objections to handle them.
  • Article 12 (Publication)

    ① (Number of publications) The journal shall be published in one volume per year with each volume comprised of seven issues.

    ② (Date of publication) An issue of the journal shall be published on the 30th of the following months: January, March, May, July, September, and November, while the December issue shall be published on the 20th of the December.

    ③ (Internationalization of the journal) The second issue of each volume can be made into a special feature issue with papers approved for publication among those papers that have been resubmitted to the journal after being adopted in the IWAIT (The International Workshop on Advanced Imaging Technology) conference held in the previous year.

  • Article 13 (List of reviewers) In the last issue of each volume, a list of reviewers may be published who participated in the review process of any paper published within the volume. The list shall include the names of the reviewers and their affiliations.
  • Article 14 (Best paper prize) The editorial board may select and award the best paper among the papers published in each volume.
  • Article 15 (Miscellaneous) Matters not attended to in the above regulations shall be handled through resolutions of the editorial board.
  • Article 16 (Time of enforcement) These regulations shall be applied to the first issue in 2019 and thereafter.
Editorial Office
1108, New building, 22, Teheran-ro 7-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea
Homepage: TEL: +82-2-568-3556 FAX: +82-2-568-3557
Copyrightⓒ 2012 The Korean Institute of Broadcast and Media Engineers
All Rights Reserved