Korean Accounting Review

Print ISSN 1229-3288|Online ISSN 2508-7193

home REVIEWER REVIEWER

REVIEWER

This is an explanation for review process and a guideline for reviewers. All of the journal's contents are subject to peer-review.

Double blind peer review

  • (1) Upon the receipt of the submitted manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief shall immediately discuss with Editorial Board members and select the three most adequate referees.
  • (2) A double-blinded review is conducted to ensure the anonymity so that the referee and the submitter did not know each other.

Selection of Referees

  • (1) In principle, the appointed referee should have expertise in the submitted manuscript among those who meet the qualifications listed below. In this case, those who are not members of the Korean Accounting Association may also be appointed as referees.
    • 1. Has published at least one paper in the relevant field in the Accredited (and Candidates for Accredited) Journals listed by the National Research Foundation of Korea within the most recent three (3) years.
    • 2. Has published at least one paper in his/her major field in a renowned international journal within the most recent three years.
    • 3. Has been an editor of a renowned international journal within the most recent three years or currently is an editor of a renowned international journal.
  • (2) A referee considered to have a conflict of interest with the manuscript under review (due to relations with the author such as an academic advisor or his/her manuscript currently under review) should not be appointed.
  • (3) The Editor-in-Chief should evaluate the adequacy of review, the extent of rejection opinion, and compliance with the review deadline for each referee and reflect the results in the selection of referees in the following year.

Obligations for Referees

  • (1) If the referees are able to recognize the identity of the applicant directly or indirectly and decide that the evaluation cannot be fairly made, they should voluntarily decline to be appointed as referees.
  • (2) If the referees cannot meet the deadline due to unavoidable circumstances such as overseas business trips, they shall immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief of the situation and return the paper requested for review.
  • (3) The referees should not eliminate the manuscript due to personal academic viewpoints or interpretations without providing sufficient evidence.
  • (4) The referees should follow the review method and deadline determined by the editors and should notify the Editor-in-Chief if it is difficult to comply with.
  • (5) The referees should fully respect the applicant’s dignity and scholarly conscience, and the opinions of the referees should be based on sufficient evidence, and should not include expressions that insult or demean the applicant’s dignity.
  • (6) The referees should not disclose the information obtained during the review process to the public, nor should they use the content of the manuscript obtained during the review process for the referee’s research.
  • (7) The referees should not show or discuss the original text of the submitted manuscript to others. The referees should conduct the evaluation independently.
  • (8) The referees must comply with the Research Ethics Guidelines.

Criteria for Review

The referees should consider the following requirements.

  • 1. Importance of research topic (theoretical, practical and educational contributions)
  • 2. Creativity of the content
  • 3. Feasibility of the research method
  • 4. Effective communication of contents
  • 5. The degree to which technical editorial requirements are met

Review Opinion

  • (1) The review report includes the management number, the title of the paper, item evaluation (the contribution of the research topic, the originality of the research content, the validity of the research method, the effective delivery of the content, the composition of the paper, and others), overall evaluation (Accept without Modification, Accept with Minor Modification, Revise&Resubmit, Reject), items for correction and modification, or reason for rejection.
  • (2) Evaluation of the review report results in one of the following review opinions.
    • 1. Accept without Modification: The manuscript is qualified to be published in the “Korean Accounting Review” after a partial modification such as a format revision, for example, correction of vowels, or other minor revisions. In this case, the contents of the revision can be confirmed for publication by the Editor-in-Chief without notification to the referees.
    • 2. Accept with Minor Modification: After minor changes are made, the manuscript is qualified to be published. In this case, the referees will be notified of the revision to confirm that the revision has been made properly.
    • 3. Revise&Resubmit: The manuscript should be significantly revised and improved, or the authors should provide supplementary research material to be qualified to be published. In this case, the referees will be notified of the revision to confirm that the revision has been made properly.
    • 4. Reject: The manuscript is deemed inappropriate to be published. In this case, the referees must provide sufficient evidence so that the applicant can understand the reasons for the rejection.