Regulations
of the Editorial Board
[Journal of Northeast Asian Arts and Cultural
Management (JNAACM)]
Chapter
1. General Rules
Article 1 (Purpose)
The
purpose of the following rules is to prescribe matters regarding the editorial
work and standards for the Journal of Northeast Asian Arts and Cultural
Management (hereinafter referred to as “JNAACM”) published by the Northeast
Asian Arts and Cultural Management Association (hereinafter referred to as “NAACMA”).
Chapter
2. Editorial Committee
Article 2 (Editorial
Committee)
The
editorial committee (hereinafter referred to as “committee”) is established to accomplish
the purpose of Article 1.
Article 3 (Formation of
Editorial Committee)
1.
The editorial members shall be appointed by the
chairman of NAACMA, and the committee shall consist of no more than 50 members.
2.
The chief editor shall be appointed by the chairman
of NAACMA and is in charge of all editing.
3.
The editorial committee shall be composed of
two chief editors, one editor, and one managing editor. The editors are
appointed by the chairman of NAACMA among editorial members.
4.
The term for the chief editor is three years,
and the term for the editorial members is two years, and editorial members may
be reappointed.
5.
This committee makes decisions with a majority
attendance of the members and a majority agreement of the members present.
Article 4 (Qualification of
Editorial Members)
The
editorial members shall meet the following qualifications:
a. Being at least an associate professor in a
domestic/international university or a person equally qualified.
b. Someone who studies in an area within the JNAACM’s
specialty and who has published at least 3 articles in a journal (or 1 article
in an SCI, SSCI, and/or SCOPUS-indexed journal) within the last three years.
Article 5 (Responsibilities
and Obligations of Editorial Members)
1.
Editorial members are fully responsible for the
decision to publish JNAACM-submitted papers, confirm their integrity during the
deliberation process, and observe candidates during the editing process.
2.
Editorial members should respect the author’s
person and independence as a scholar, and make the process of the evaluation of
the research paper public if there is a request.
3.
Editorial members should handle submitted papers
only based on the quality and submission guidelines, not based on the author’s
gender, age, or affiliation.
4.
Editorial members should request a reviewer
with specialized knowledge and fair evaluation ability in the relevant field to
evaluate submitted papers. However, if evaluations of the same paper are remarkably
different, editorial members can acquire advice from an expert in the relevant
field.
5.
Editorial members should not disclose the
matters of the author and the details of the paper until a decision is made on the
publication of the submitted paper.
Chapter
3. Paper Submission and Peer Review Committee
Article 6 (Qualification of
Submission and Submission)
1. All the
paper submitters must be members registered with JNAACM.
2. All
papers should be submitted through the JNAACM online system (http://www.jnaacm.org),
and can be submitted at any time. English-language papers from authors outside
of the United States of America may also be submitted using e-mail.
Article 7 (Formation of Peer
Review Committee)
1.
Peer reviewers are appointed by the chief
editor, and selected based on the field of the reviewer’s expertise. (According
to circumstances, a peer reviewer who is not a member of JNAACM may be
appointed.)
2.
Editorial members for each content subject such
as health science, health and medical information,
nursing science, and hospital financial accounting can also serve as peer
reviewers.
3.
The chief editor represents editorial members,
handles all the matters relating to review, and reports the results of peer
review to the committee.
4.
The managing editor is in charge of the procedure
relating to review.
5.
The classification and selection of submitted
papers are decided by the chief editor and the managing editor, and they report
it to the committee.
Article 8 (Qualification of
Peer Reviewers)
Peer
reviewers shall have the following qualifications:
a.
Being at least
an associate professor in a domestic/international university, or a person who
is as equally specialized as the person above.
b.
Someone who
studies an area within the JNAACM’s specialty and has published at least 3
articles in a journal (or 1 article in an SCI, SSCI, and/or SCOPUS-indexed
journal) within the last three years.
c.
Someone who
presents a paper, chairs a session serves as a discussant at an academic
conference at the same level of the institution, or has served as a reviewer of
a study that has been indexed in a domestic or international journal within the
last three years.
Article 9 (Responsibility and
Duty of Peer Reviewers)
1.
Peer reviewers should evaluate papers and
report the results of the evaluation to the committee within the period set by
the committee. However, if he/she believes that they are not appropriately
qualified to review the paper, they should notify the committee without delay.
2.
Peer reviewers should respect the author’s
person and independence as a scholar. Peer reviewers may request for revision
of the paper with detailed explanations if needed in the evaluation of the
research paper.
3.
Papers are reviewed confidentially using a
method in which the name and affiliation of the author are confidential to the public.
Showing the paper and/or discussing the contents of the paper with a third
party is not desirable unless a consultation is needed for purposes of review.
Article 10 (Unethical
Behavior in the Review Process)
1.
Peer reviewers must not manipulate either
directly or indirectly the related research-specific information contained in
the research proposal or review process without the consent of the original
author.
2.
Peer reviewers must be careful of the following
since it could be regarded as unethical research practices in the review
process:
a. The act of handing over quested paper to
students or a third party
b. The act of discussing the details of a paper
with colleagues
c. The act of obtaining a copy of the requested
material without shredding it after review
d. The act of disgracing the honor of others or
fabricating a personal attack in the review process
e. The act of reviewing and evaluating a research
paper without reading it
Article 11 (Personal and
Intellectual Conflict)
1.
Peer reviewers must fairly evaluate using an
objective standard regardless of personal academic conviction.
2.
Peer reviewers must avoid personal prejudice
when reviewing a paper. If there is a conflict of interest including personal
conflict, it must be notified to the committee.
3.
Peer reviewers must not propose rejecting a paper
due to a conflict in interpretation or with the point of view of the reviewer.
Chapter
4. Principle and Process of Paper Review
Article 12 (Papers for
Peer-review)
Review
shall proceed based on the writing and submission guidelines. If the submitted
paper substantially diverges from the writing and submission guidelines, the
paper may not be reviewed.
Article 13 (Request for
Review and Review Fee)
1. The
chief editor discusses the selection of reviewers with editorial members and
selects two reviewers for each paper after submitted papers pass the
eligibility test.
2. The
chief editor immediately requests the two selected reviewers to review the
relevant submitted paper.
3. Papers
are reviewed by the confidential method in which the name and affiliation of
the author is confidential to the reviewer, and the name of the reviewer is
confidential to the author.
4. The
chief editor requests a review after deleting the name and the affiliation of
the author from the submitted paper, so that the reviewer cannot obtain the
identity of the author.
5. A review
fee shall be paid to the reviewer.
Article 14 (Review of Paper
and Decision)
1.
Reviewers shall submit a decision report via
the JNAACM’s online submission system (http://www.jnaacm.org) within two weeks
after they are asked to review a paper.
2.
The reviewer shall decide whether the paper
should be published based on the following standard. However, if the paper receives
less than 30 points in the suitability and creativity of the topic, it will not
be published.
a. The
suitability of the topic (20 points)
b. The
creativity of the topic (20 points)
c. The
validity of the research analysis (20 points)
d. The
organization and logic development of the paper (20 points)
e. The
contribution of the result (10 points)
f. The
expression of the sentence and the requirement of editing (10 points)
The reviewer must give one of
the following four possible marks within the two weeks: A (90~100 points,
acceptance), B (80~89 points, acceptance after minor revisions), C (70~79
points, re-review after revision), F (Rejection), and write an overall review
comment concerning the revision and supplementation of the paper.
3.
In an instance where the reviewer does not
finish the review within two weeks, the chief editor can nominate a new
reviewer.
Article 15 (Correction of
Papers according to the Editing Guideline)
1.
Before holding an editorial committee meeting,
the chief editor shall request editorial staff correct those papers that
receive “acceptance” or “acceptance after minor revisions”, using the journal’s
paper editing guidelines. However, if there is a paper that receives “acceptance”
after the editorial committee meeting, the chief editor will request the
editorial staff to correct the paper after the meeting.
2.
The chief editor shall notify each author of
the result of his or her paper review after receiving the corrected version of
the paper from the editorial staff. However, papers that receive a “rejection”
shall not be notified of their result.
Article 16 (Decision of Paper
and Principle of Editing)
1.
The chief editor shall call an editorial board
meeting and make publication decisions after receiving finished papers from
reviewers.
2.
The editorial board will make decisions to
publish based on the following chart. The editorial board should respect
reviewers’ decisions on relevant papers but can make decisions based on the
editorial policy of the JNAACM.
Results of 2 peer reviews
|
Overall evaluation (average)
|
Decision to publish
|
AA
|
A
|
Acceptance
|
AB, AC, BB
|
B
|
Acceptance
after minor revisions
|
AD, BC, BD, CC
|
B: 80 or more
C: Less than 80
|
Acceptance after minor revisions
Re-evaluation after revision
|
CD, DD
|
F
|
Rejection
|
3.
The paper that is awarded “acceptance” should receive
a “B” or higher from reviewers or the level of overall evaluation (average)
should be “B” or higher, and the paper that is awarded “acceptance after minor
revisions” should have its satisfactory revisions and/or developments confirmed
by the initial reviewer after re-submission.
4.
The editorial board shall confirm that papers
in consideration for publication are suitable to the writing and submission
guidelines of JNAACM, look through detailed matters, and decide particular
issue policies such as the number of papers and the order of them.
5.
In the case where a paper was presented or
submitted for review previously, it cannot be published in JNAACM.
6.
In the case where an author submits two or more
papers for consideration, only one paper that receives “acceptance” shall be
published in the same issue.
Article 17 (Notification of
the Result)
1. The
chief editor shall notify an author of the review result after the initial
evaluation or re-evaluation is finished but can request the author to revise
and develop the paper based on the evaluation report. If the editorial board
makes a final decision on publication, the author should be notified.
2. The
author must be notified of the review result within one month from the day of
receiving the paper or revised paper (or the deadline of submission). If it is
impossible to notify the author within one month, the reason and the due date
of notification must be notified to the author.
3. Unless
there is a specific reason, the author must submit a file including a response
to the evaluation report, revision to and/or development of the paper to the
chief editor after editing the paper within the period the editorial board
suggests when he/she is asked to edit the paper. The changed details must be
confirmed by the editorial board as well. In case the author does not submit
the revision and development to the editorial board within the period, it shall
be automatically postponed until this process is finished.
4. A paper that
receives a “C” in the overall evaluation (average) shall be re-evaluated after the
chief editor sends the revised article and revision report to the initial
reviewer(s).
5. In cases
where the evaluations of the same paper are remarkably different among
reviewers, the chief editor can nominate a third reviewer and request a re-evaluation.
In this case, the chief editor shall send the evaluation report to three
different reviewers and have them submit the final evaluation report based on
the details of the paper, and the paper can be published after revision only if
the final mark awarded the revised paper is higher than a “B” in the overall
evaluation.
6. The
chief editor will issue an acceptance letter for the papers confirmed to be
published.
Article 18 (Proofreading and
Editing)
1.
The chief editor shall request
domestic/international members to proofread and edit papers confirmed to be
published.
2.
Proofreading and editing members shall be
recommended by the chief editor and appointed by the chairman of NAACMA.
3.
The chief editor shall send the results of
proofreading and editing to the original author and request the author to edit
the paper appropriately.
4.
The author, unless there is a specific reason,
must submit the revised paper and revision report to the chief editor after
editing the paper within the period the editorial board suggests when he/she is
asked to edit the paper. The changed details must be confirmed by the editorial
board as well.
5.
Even if a paper is confirmed to be published,
it will be rejected if it has not fulfilled the editing procedure following the
result of proofreading and editing, or has been found to have committed
research misconduct of any kind.
6.
If an editing member finds plagiarism,
inadequate form, or low quality in the process of editing a paper that the
journal has confirmed to be published, he/she must notify the chief editor and
can suggest proper responses to the findings.
7.
The chief editor suggests whether to avoid
publication of a paper or have the author re-submit the paper after revision
and development according to the guidelines stipulated in Article 5. In the
case of a paper requested to be revised and developed, publication can be
postponed based on the degree of completion and the schedule of revision and
development.
Chapter
5. Editing and Publication
Article 19 (Editing and the
Date of Publication)
JNAACM
is published two times a year [30th June, 30th December] in principle. However,
if there is a reason such as the number of submitted papers, the committee can
increase or decrease the number of issues.
Article 20 (Notification of
Editing)
1.
The chief editor shall acquire publication
consent from the authors of the confirmed papers before printing.
2.
The chief editor shall report to the chairman
of NAACMA when the editorial process following editorial policy is completed,
and shall further follow the outlined process for printing and editing.
Article 21 (Sanction on
Plagiarism and Redundant Publication)
If the
ethics committee finds that a submitted paper or a published paper contains plagiarism
or was published in another journal, the following sanctions will be taken:
1.
Distributing after deleting the relevant paper
in the journal if the journal has not been distributed yet,
2.
Notification of paper deletion on the website
if the related issue has already been distributed,
3.
Notification of the plagiarism or redundant
publication of the relevant paper on the website,
4.
Banning the relevant author from submitting
papers to all journals published by NAACMA for two years from the date when
plagiarism and redundant publication is found and from presenting in conferences,
and
5.
Notifying the author’s affiliated organization
or institution of the fact of the plagiarism or the redundant publication, if
necessary.
Article 22 (Transfer of the
Rights of Publication, Duplication, Public Transmission, and Distribution)
1.
The right of publication of the paper is owned
by NAACMA unless specified.
2.
The author(s) shall transfer the right of
duplication, public transmission, and publication to NAACMA. If they do not
agree, the relevant paper cannot be published in JNAACM.
Article 23 (Notification of
Paper on Homepage)
Papers
published in JNAACM shall be publicly notified on the JNAACM homepage (http://www.
jnaacm.org)
Article 24 (Etc.)
The
matters that are not decided in these rules are either subject to the
submission guidelines or decided by the editorial board.
Article 25 (Date of
Effectiveness)
These
regulations shall be effective as of March 1, 2024.