Review Policy

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

KODISA Journals operate a double-blind peer-review process unless otherwise stated by the specific journal. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

To ensure anonymity, authors must remove all identifying information from the main manuscript file, including author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding information, institutional identifiers, and any other information that may reveal the authors’ identities.

A separate title page should include the manuscript title, author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding information, conflict-of-interest statement, and complete contact information for the corresponding author.

Authors may cite their own previous works when necessary, but such citations should be written in a manner that does not directly reveal the authors’ identities during the review process.

Acceptable examples:

“Lee (2013) indicated that…”

“Some scholars have indicated that similar findings exist in this area (e.g., Lee, 2013; Youn & Lee, 2018).”

Although KODISA Journals make reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed because authors may be identifiable through writing style, subject matter, research context, or self-citation.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first checked by the editorial office and/or the Editor-in-Chief for completeness, submission requirements, formatting, ethical declarations, similarity concerns, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

At this stage, the editorial office checks administrative, formatting, and submission requirements, while scholarly quality is assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and reviewers in subsequent stages.

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may reject or return a manuscript without external review if the manuscript is outside the journal’s aims and scope, lacks sufficient originality, does not meet basic scholarly standards, fails to comply with submission requirements, or raises serious ethical concerns.

3. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment must be reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers before a final editorial decision is made.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, independence, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. If invited reviewers decline or fail to respond, additional invitations may be issued until at least two qualified reviewers have agreed to review the manuscript.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, academic contribution, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

Reviewers provide recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor. Reviewers do not make the final editorial decision.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection, or another decision category used by the relevant journal.

If major problems are identified, reviewers may recommend rejection and provide reasons for their recommendation. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editorial decision-maker.

When reviewer opinions are substantially divergent, or when additional expert judgment is needed, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may invite an additional reviewer or consult the editorial board before making a final decision.

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers’ comments, the scholarly quality of the manuscript, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and the journal’s editorial standards.

The editorial decision may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection, or other decision categories used by the relevant journal.

The decision letter will be sent to the corresponding author with relevant reviewer comments, where appropriate. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless the journal has adopted a different review model.

6. Revision and Further Review

If a manuscript is returned for revision, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a response letter explaining how the reviewers’ and editors’ comments have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to additional reviewers, or assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, depending on the extent of revision required and the policy of the relevant journal.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor without additional external review.

7. Publication Ethics and COPE Principles

KODISA Journals are committed to upholding high standards of publication ethics and take appropriate measures against publication malpractice.

KODISA Journals follow the principles and ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), where applicable. Editors, reviewers, authors, and editorial staff are expected to act responsibly, fairly, transparently, and ethically throughout the review and publication process.

Peer reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or upload submitted manuscripts or review materials to unauthorized third parties or external platforms.

8. Final Checklist Before Submission

Before submission, authors should ensure that:

1. The manuscript fits the aims and scope of the selected KODISA journal.

2. The manuscript has been prepared according to the relevant journal’s author guidelines.

3. The main manuscript file has been anonymized for double-blind review.

4. A separate title page with author information has been prepared.

5. All references cited in the text appear in the reference list, and vice versa.

6. Permission has been obtained for any copyrighted material used.

7. Conflict-of-interest information has been disclosed.

8. Funding information has been disclosed, where applicable.

9. AI use has been disclosed, where applicable.

10. The manuscript has been checked for spelling, grammar, clarity, and formatting.

Language-focused copy editing is the responsibility of the authors before submission unless otherwise specified by the relevant journal.

9. Submission Declaration

Submission of a manuscript implies that the work has not been previously published, except in forms permitted by the relevant journal’s policy, such as an abstract, academic thesis, conference presentation, lecture, or other preliminary form.

Submission also implies that the manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, is not being simultaneously submitted to another journal, has been approved by all authors, and has been approved by the responsible institution or authority where applicable.

If authors prepare multiple manuscripts using the same dataset or use partially overlapping variables, methods, results, or research materials in two or more manuscripts, this must be disclosed clearly at the time of submission. Authors should explain the relationship between the submitted manuscript and any related published, submitted, or planned work.

Manuscripts may be returned or rejected if the degree of overlap with other work is excessive or insufficiently disclosed.

10. Similarity Screening

KODISA Journals may use similarity-checking software, such as iThenticate, CrossCheck, or other appropriate tools, to detect overlapping or similar text in submitted manuscripts.

Similarity screening is used to support editorial evaluation and ethical review. A similarity report does not automatically determine acceptance or rejection. Editors may consider the nature, extent, source, and context of similarity when making decisions.

Specific similarity thresholds, if applicable, may vary by journal and shall be applied according to the policy of the relevant KODISA journal.

11. Submission, Review, Acceptance, Production, Publication, and Indexing Process

The general submission-to-publication process may include the following stages, although details may vary among KODISA Journals.

Step 1. Initial Screening

The editorial office and/or desk editor checks submission requirements, required documents, manuscript format, ethical declarations, APC agreement where applicable, reference style, and similarity screening.

Step 2. External Review

If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is sent for external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment must be reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers before a final editorial decision is made.

External review normally takes several weeks, but the time required may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, journal policy, and editorial circumstances.

After external review is completed and the manuscript has been formally accepted for publication, APC payment and production procedures are processed separately. APC payment does not influence the editorial decision.

Step 3. Copy Editing and Typesetting

After the manuscript has been formally accepted, production procedures, including copy editing and typesetting, are initiated according to the policy of the relevant journal.

APC payment, where applicable, is processed separately and does not influence editorial decisions.

Step 4. Production Check

The production editor or responsible editorial staff checks publication information, including article title, author names, affiliations, DOI, pagination, references, tables, figures, PDF, XML/HTML, and other publication metadata, where applicable.

Step 5. Online Publication

Accepted articles are published online according to the publication schedule and production policy of the relevant journal. Publication formats may include PDF, XML/HTML, DOI registration, and other scholarly database services, where applicable.

Step 6. Print Publication

Where applicable, printed issues or hard copies may be produced according to the policy of the relevant journal. Not all KODISA Journals may provide printed copies or offprints.

Step 7. Indexing and Abstracting

Publication metadata may be submitted to relevant indexing and abstracting databases, where applicable. Indexing decisions are made solely by the respective indexing agencies.

The time required for indexing in external databases varies depending on the policies and processing schedules of each indexing agency. KODISA Foundation and individual KODISA Journals cannot guarantee indexing outcomes or processing times.

12. General Provision

This Review Policy applies generally to KODISA Journals owned, managed, and published by KODISA Foundation. Individual KODISA Journals may adopt additional or more specific procedures according to their academic discipline, indexing requirements, submission system, editorial structure, or publication model.

Where there is any difference between this general policy and the specific policy of an individual KODISA journal, the specific policy of the relevant journal shall apply.