( 2019. 12. 1. Enactment)
Article 1 [Purpose)
The purpose of this regulation is to clarify all matters related to paper review concerning publication in the Asia Pacific Journal of Applied Sport Sciences (hereinafter referred to as APJASS). These clarifications are made per the regulations of the Asian Society for Sports Convergence Sciences editorial board.
Article 2 (Paper for Review)
1. The editorial board selects a reviewer after assessing the suitability of the submitted paper.
2. Submitted papers in fields unsuitable for APJASS, or those that do not comply with the submission rules, may be returned to the contributor without review.
Article 3 (Reviewers)
1. Once the submission is complete, the editor-in-chief must convene an editorial board to review the submitted paper.
2. The editorial board selects two reviewers to review each submitted paper. A person who is likely to harm the fairness of the review in a clearly special relationship with the paper contributor should not be selected as a reviewer.
3. The editorial board appoints reviewers with extensively published research in the same field as the received manuscript. If a contributor to the manuscript is an editorial member, they may be excluded from the editorial meeting.
4. The selection of reviewers should be evenly distributed throughout the country, and one person should not be requested to review more than three papers simultaneously.
Article 4 (Review Standards)
The paper is reviewed according to the relevance and originality of the topic, the validity of the research method, consistency of the logic and system, reviews of previous studies, degree of academic contribution, conformance with the APJASS guidelines, completeness of footnotes and references, and completeness of a comprehensively reviewed abstract.
Article 5 (Review Procedure)
The review of the paper follows the procedure outlined below.
1. The first two reviewers each categorize the manuscript by one of the following four categories:
① Accepted, ② Accepted with Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance, ③ Major Revision, and ④ Rejected. A third review is requested where the statuses are a combination of “accepted” and “rejected,” or “minor revision/conditional acceptance” and “rejected.”
2. The editor-in-chief ask`s the appointed reviewers to review the paper.
3. The editorial board conducts a general review of reviewed papers, and the editor-in-chief decides whether or not to publish.
4. The decision to publish a submitted paper is made by the editorial board after review.
5. The editorial board decides whether to publish a paper already rejected by at least one reviewer.
6. If the editoraal board determines that it is necessary to publish a paper, it may appoint some members from outside.
7. Two reviewers are appointed for each paper, and the review is conducted by a consensus system.
8. If the reviewers find that the paper’s content is inappropriate for publication, they may request the author revise the paper per the journal’s submission regulations.
9. If the author does not respond within one week of the reviewers’ requested revision or supplementation, the manuscript may be resubmitted in the next issue.
10. Paper review is confidential in principle.
11. The review period is two weeks.
Article 6 (Review Judgment)
1. The review judgment of the paper is categorized into one of these four categories: ① Accepted, ② Accepted with Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance, ③ Major Revision, ④ Rejected.
2. Papers judged as “accepted” can be published without the need for modification.
3. Papers with clear contents and sufficient research results that still require revision or supplementation are judged as “minor revision/conditional acceptance.” The authors are requested to revise highlighted corrections and supplemental requirements in detail. When the author submits a revised manuscript, the reviewers judge the modifications and supplementation.
4. A paper with unclear or insufficient content is judged as “major revision.” The reason is specified, and the author is notified. When the author submits the edited manuscript, they request a review of the revised version.
5. Papers that are inappropriate for publication in this journal because of insufficient content, egregious errors, or similarities to previously published papers, are judged as “rejected.” The reason is specified in detail and the author is notified.
6. The list of reviewers will not be announced at all. The review contents are not disclosed to anyone but the author.
Judgment Type | Judgment Criteria |
Reviewer A |
Reviewer B |
Accepted |
Accepted |
Accepted |
Accepted |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Accepted |
Major Revision |
Major Revision |
Accepted |
Rejected |
Third Review(Reviewer C) |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Major Revision |
Major Revision |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Rejected |
Third Review(Reviewer C) |
Major Revision |
Major Revision |
Major Revision |
Major Revision |
Rejected |
Rejected (resubmission Possible) |
Rejected |
Rejected |
Rejected (resubmission Impossible) |
Reviewer C (Third Review) Total Judgment | Rereview Result Total Judgment |
In case of one person rereview | In case of two persons rereview |
Accepted |
Accepted |
Accepted |
Accepted |
Accepted, Accepted |
Accepted |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Accepted, Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Rejected |
Rejected |
Rejected |
Rejected |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance, Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance |
|
|
|
|
Minor Revision/Conditional Acceptance, Major Revision |
Major Revision |
|
|
|
|
Major Revision, Major Revision |
Major Revision |
|
|
|
|
In case one reviewer rejected |
Rejected (Submission Possible) |
|
|
|
|
Rejected, Rejected |
Rejected(Submission Impossible) |
7. Examples of comprehensive judgment are as follows. In the case of a third review and major revision, judgment is made choosing from “accepted,” “minor revision/conditional acceptance,” and “rejected.” “Major revision” is excluded.
Article 7 (Publication decision)
In principle, in the case of minor revision/conditional acceptance or higher according to the judgment grade, it should be published in the journal.
Article 8 (Poor Paper)
When the paper review and evaluation are judged to be significantly poor, the editorial board may decide not to consider the evaluation results in their decision to publish the paper.
Article 9 (Issuance of Certificate of Scheduled Publication)
A certificate of scheduled publication may be issued for a paper that has been confirmed for publication.
Article 10 (Opening and Closing of Rules)
These rules may be opened or closed by resolution of the editorial board.
Article 11 (Specific Matters)
1. Details not specified in these rules shall be decided through resolutions taken by the editorial board.
2. The same applies to the paper submission application form, the paper review evaluation form, the pledge to comply with research ethics regulations, and the copyright transfer agreement.
Article 1 This rule is effective from December 1, 2019.
