Regulations on Reviewing Manuscripts

Revised on April 12, 2024

1. Submission deadlines

Deadlines for the submission of manuscripts are as follows: Issue 1 (January 31); Issue 2 (April 30); Issue 3 (July 31); Issue 4 (October 31). Manuscripts submitted after a deadline will be considered for publication in the following issue. The editor-in-chief reserves the right to adjust deadlines when necessary.

2. Principles of review

Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously by two or more reviewers commissioned by the editorial board. Each submitted paper is reviewed without the personal information of the author and information on research funding. Solicited manuscripts as well as those based on presentations given at conferences organized by the Korean Society for Medical Ethics will also undergo peer review.

3. Composition of reviewers

The editor-in-chief, in consultation with the editorial board, will select three reviewers for each manuscript submission.

(1) Reviewers must be Ph.D. holders with relevant expertise.

(2) The reviewer for any given manuscript must not belong to the same institution as the author of the manuscript.

(3) No one may be a contributing author as well as a reviewer for the same issue of the journal.

(4) In the case of manuscripts written by six or more contributing authors, the restrictions described in (2) and (3) apply only to the lead author.

4. Criteria for review

(1) The editorial board will evaluate whether the subject matter of a submitted manuscript falls within the scope of this journal; those that do not will be withdrawn without peer review.

(2) The reviewer will evaluate the submitted manuscript in terms of the following criteria: structure and format, understanding and reflection of existing research, consistency, originality of the thesis, academic value, and accuracy of the abstract.

5. Final decision and notification of results

(1) Each manuscript, after it is reviewed, will receive one of the following three decisions.

• (a) Suitable for publication: These manuscripts require little or no modification and do not undergo further review, although authors are expected to accommodate any suggestions from the reviewers or explain why that cannot be done.
• (b) Revise and resubmit: These manuscripts require significant modification; authors are invited to revise and resubmit. All resubmitted manuscripts undergo a second review.
• (c) Not suitable for publication: These manuscripts are excluded from any further consideration.

(2) For reviews conducted by three reviewers, manuscripts will not be published when two or more reviewers judge that the manuscript is not suitable for publication or when two reviewers recommend that it be revised and resubmitted and the third reviewer judges that it is not suitable for publication. For reviews conducted by two reviewers, manuscripts will not be published when one or both of the reviewers judges that the manuscript is not suitable for publication.

(3) The editor-in-chief will anonymously process a written review of the feedback provided by each reviewer and notify all reviewers of the decision on whether to publish the manuscript.

(4) Contributing authors who have been instructed to revise their manuscripts should prepare a separate document, explaining the modifications that were made to the manuscript in light of the reviewers’ comments, and submit that document, along with the revised manuscript, within two weeks from the date of notification of the results.

(5) Those who review a revised manuscript will decide whether it suitable for publication and notify the editorial board within seven days.

(6) For reviews conducted by three reviewers, revised manuscripts that are judged to be unfit for publication will be rejected, unless two of the reviewers judged in the first review that the manuscript was suitable for publication.

(7) The final judgment on whether to publish the manuscript will be determined after considering the results of the three reviewers. The editorial board may request further revisions to resubmitted manuscripts after determining whether the reviewers’ requests have been satisfied.

(8) If an author refuses to comply with revision instructions or fails to either submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline or raise objections to the review within seven days, the editorial board may decline to give the submission further consideration.

(9) If there is a surplus of manuscripts available for publication, the editor-in-chief may adjust the number of articles to be published in an issue and determine the order of publication.

6. Request for reconsideration of review results

(1) Authors who believe that their manuscripts have been incorrectly or unfairly reviewed may request a second review, explaining in detail the nature of their grievance and request. In such cases, the editorial board will determine whether the request for reconsideration is warranted.

(2) If the editorial board determines that a request for reconsideration is warranted, a third reviewer will be selected for an additional review. All procedures—the selection of a third reviewer, reconsideration, synthesis of review results, final decision and notification—will be completed within four weeks.

(3) If the editorial board determines that the request for reconsideration is not warranted, they will promptly notify the author of this decision.

7. Issuance of e-certificate for manuscripts scheduled to be published

A document certifying that a submitted manuscript is scheduled to be published may be issued at the request of those authors whose manuscripts have been accepted for publication.