KAR operates a web-based online paper submission and peer-review system which allows authors to submit their papers over the Internet and check the status of the submitted papers simply by logging into the system. It provides online peer-review services, tracks papers through the review process, and helps to minimize the amount of time between initial submission of a manuscript and final disposition.
When a paper is newly submitted to the online system, the KAR managing editor performs an initial screening to decide if it is suitable for further processing. If the paper passes the managing editor's check, the KAR editor-in-chief appoints three reviewers. The members of the KAR editorial board believe that the quality - and therefore the value - of the journal is increased by selecting appropriate reviewers to identify quality papers, and by managing the peer review process objectively and efficiently. After gathering enough review results from the selected reviewers, the KAR editor-in-chief makes a ‘recommendation’ on whether or not the paper should be accepted for publication.
More detailed information regarding the duties of authors is available at here.
Brief outline of review process is as follows:
- File format in MS word (.docx, doc) or Hancom (.hwp) specifying the technical field, title, abstract, and key words.
- After receiving the manuscript, the administrative secretary confirms the technical issues and routes the manuscript to the editor-in-chief.
- Editor-in-chief selects three reviewers and asks for evaluation. In case when the reviewer declines the request, the editor-in-chief selects another reviewer. Reviewers are expected to finish the review within four weeks after their acceptance of the review.
- In case when the evaluation result is not collected within four weeks, the editor-in-chief should demand the evaluation result from the reviewer via written request and/or telephone. Editor-in-chief may select a new reviewer substituting the delayed reviewer.
- Publication of the manuscript is determined by the following guidelines upon two recommendations out of three reviewers.
|Referee A||Referee B||Referee C|
|Reject||Revise & Resubmit||Revise & Resubmit||Rejection under the decision of the Editorial Board, or Re-evaluation of the revised manuscript by referees B and C|
|Reject||Revise & Resubmit||Accept with Minor Modification||Decision made by the results of re-evaluation of the revised manuscript by referees B and C|
|Reject||Accept with Minor Modification||Accept with Minor Modification|
|Revise & Resubmit||Revise & Resubmit||Revise & Resubmit||Rejection under the decision of the Editorial Board, or Re-evaluation of the revised manuscript by referees A, B, and C|
|Revise & Resubmit||Revise & Resubmit||Accept with Minor Modification||Decision made by the results of re-evaluation of the revised manuscript by referees A, B and C|
|Revise & Resubmit||Accept with Minor Modification||Accept with Minor Modification|
|Accept with Minor Modification||Accept with Minor Modification||Accept with Minor Modification|
|Accept without Modification||Accept without Modification||Other opinions||Accept|