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 January 04, 2019
• Partially amended on April 21, 2023

• 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) The review procedure of submitted manuscripts shall follow the following order, in principle.

  ① Selection of reviewers and commissioning of review (within two weeks after manuscript submission)

  ② Preliminary judgment (within three weeks after commissioning of review)

  ③ Decision on publication (immediately after receipt of preliminary judgment)

  ④ Request for revision of the manuscript (immediately after receipt of preliminary judgment)

  ⑤ Submission of revised manuscript (within two months after revision request)
  However, items 4 and 5 may be performed only if necessary, and detailed standards and methods for each item shall be provided as follows.

• 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) The reviewers shall evaluate the quality of the manuscript based on the review contents according to Article 4 and the papers already published in the journal and make the following judgments:.

  ① Acceptance: When the manuscript can be published without modification or when the necessary modifications to the structure and content of the manuscript are minor, and it is judged that the manuscript can be published after modification.

  ② Rejection: This includes the following two cases:

  1. Resubmission after revision: When significant modifications or major improvements to the manuscript are deemed necessary.

  2. Not suitable for publication: It is judged that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

  ③ Recommendation for submission to another academic journal: When the nature of the paper does not match the journal's focus.
  Suppose the author fails to submit a revised or final version of the manuscript without clear reason within two months after being notified of acceptance. In that case, the manuscript may be rejected for publication, taking into account the prompt processing and timeliness of the paper.

• 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. If the article is judged to be "accepted for publication" by two or more of the three referees in the "initial review," the article's publication will generally be confirmed.

  2. If the article is judged as "unfit for publication" by two or more of the three referees in the "initial review," the article will be deemed "unfit for publication" regardless of the judgment of the remaining referee.

  3. If the article receives a "revise and resubmit" judgment from two or more of the three referees in the "initial review," the article will be confirmed as "rejected for publication." The author should revise the article as much as possible based on the referees' comments before resubmitting it.

  4. If two referees judge the article as "accepted for publication" and one judge as "rejected for publication" in the "initial review," the article will generally be confirmed for publication. Still, the author must consider the issues raised in the "rejected for publication" judgment and submit a revised version and response letter. The editor-in-chief sends relevant documents to the referee who requested the revision to confirm the revision contents.

  5. Even if the article's publication is confirmed by the first and fourth subparagraphs, if one referee out of three judges it as "unfit for publication," the editorial committee will decide. The result will be notified to the author and the referee who judged it as "unfit for publication.“

  ② Request for revision

  1. If the article is judged as "accepted for publication" in the "initial review," the society will notify the author of the evaluation results and request revisions to the manuscript.

  2. The author who receives a "revision request" must revise the article based on the referees' comments. The author must submit the revised article within two months of receiving the revision request.

  ③ Others

  Recommendations for publication in other academic journals are considered to have the same effect as "unfit for publication," and the first and second subparagraphs will 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.