Peer Review Policy

> For Authors > Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose

1) The purpose of this policy is to regulate reviewing procedures of paper applied for publication in 『Audiology and Speech Research』 (hereinafter referred to as "academic journal") as official academic journal of Korean Academy of Audiology (hereinafter referred to as "academic society") and criteria of whether to publicize.
2) Review of paper in this academic society is led by the editing committee.

2. Paper submission

1) Scope of submission of paper is relevant to the following.
    ① Fields of paper for submission are classified into the research paper, review paper, and clinical paper in the field of
        audiology or related areas.
    ② Submitted paper shall not be the contents contained in other papers and cannot be submitted to other academic
        journals at the same time.

3. Paper review criteria

1) Authors and reviewers cannot belong to the same organization.
2) Reviewers shall review the followings for the paper.
    ① Conformity of regulations in research ethics
    ② Appropriateness of research title
    ③ Quality level of English abstract
    ④ Clarity of purpose of research and consistency in contents
    ⑤ Validity of research system and configuration and appropriate interpretation of results
    ⑥ Originality of research and reflection of recent research trend
    ⑦ Contribution and validity in related academic fields
    ⑧ Accuracy and completeness of indications in the reference

3) Conformity of research ethics regulations is reviewed to be either [Appropriate] or [Inappropriate] according to the 「Regulations for acquiring the research ethics and authenticity of academic society」 and judged to be [appropriate] if obtaining the IRB approval number or informed consent agreement from participants.
4) Reviewers requested for the review of paper shall evaluate the results on the following table, prepare for the review chart for paper applied to be published in 『Audiology and Speech Research (ASR), and submit it with original copy of review to the editorial board members within a certain amount of time since the date when review was requested.

4. Review criteria

1) According to the result of reviewing the paper, if it is judged to be 'inappropriate' in the [Conformity of research ethics regulations] (Article 1 - Regulations of research ethics fraudulent act), paper cannot be published regardless of the results of review.
2) Two review members shall determine whether to publish the paper through the editing committee based on the result of review.

3) "Accepted" paper does not require the original copy and response letter, while ending the review without receiving the modified copy or response letter from members who reviewed them. In case of paper receiving "Minor or Major Revision (hereinafter referred to as "revision"), paper including the modified contents and response letter on the review from panel shall be accurately submitted to the date determined by the editing committee. Editorial board members shall review modified paper and response letter and notify the final decision to the authors about reviewed paper.
4) If there is a conflict in opinion from two members in panel, it is decided whether to hire a third reviewer depending on the decision from the editorial board members.

5. Peer Review steps and timeline

1) Using the ASR Journals Editorial System, authors need to upload a properly formatted manuscript. The manuscript will be assigned by the editor-in-chief to two reviewers who have an expertise in a specific area. The reviewers will then submit some comments using a structured peer review template, along with a decision recommendation, to the editor. The editor then reads the reviews in depth, considers the recommendations, and renders a decision. Period of reviewing the paper is two weeks from the date when review is requested. However, in case of emergent paper, the review period is reduced to one week.
2) If your manuscript requires a revision, then you will be given up to one week to revise and resubmit the manuscript. After receiving your revised manuscript, the same panel members will review the revised version of manuscript and will give comments and recommendations, and a revision decision.
3) If your manuscript requires a second revision for acceptance, you will be given up to one week to submit a revised manuscript.
4) Overall time from submission to final decision of a manuscript depends on the number of rounds of review and how long authors take to complete revisions . Assuming two rounds of review (one round for the original submission and one round for the revised manuscript), time from submission to final decision will take at least approximately two months.

6. Security of paper review

1) Personal information acquired in the procedure of reviewing the paper and contents of the paper shall not be disclosed to anyone except for members of review panel and cannot be officially released.
2) If disclosing the security of the paper review, the case is dealt with according to the regulations of academic society by submitting them to editorial borad members or ethics committee.

7. Revision of regulations

This policy can be revised by decision from board of directors in the academic society after reviewing in editorial board members