Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of these guideline is to present provisions regarding review of journals to the “International Journal of Human Movement Science" (hereinafter referred as the "Journal") published in the Korean Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, under the Article XLVⅢ of the Korean Journal of Physical Education and Article VII Sec. 7 of the Korean Journal of Physical Education Editorial Board Provisions.

Article 2 (Types of Papers)

The types of papers includes Research Paper, Note, Review paper.

Article 3 (Appointment of Reviewer)

A reviewer shall be recommended by a board member in the same field and appointed by the editor-in-chief.

Article 4 (Reviewing Procedure)

Reviewing procedure shall be performed by following orders:

• 1. Request one (1) board member recommended by the editor-in-chief to appoint two (2) reviewers. The corresponding board member can be included among the two (2) reviewers.
• 2. If the result of the initial review is “accept as it is”․“rejected” or “accept after revision”․ “rejected”, a request for a third review shall be made to another reviewers.
• 3. The editor-in-chief shall request a review to an assigned reviewer.
• 4. A paper with a final review from reviewers, the board member shall give a general review, and the editor-in-chief shall give a final approval.
• 5. The publication of submitted paper shall be decided by the board through reviewers requested by the board.
• 6. If only one (1) out of two (2) reviewers decide that a paper is a “reject”, the board shall decide the final outcome.
• 7. In the case of the board addressing necessity regarding publication of submitted paper, the board shall appoint another reviewer to review from the outside.
• 8. Two (2) reviewers shall be appointed and editorial decision will be made after peer review.
• 9. In the case of reviewer finds editorial decision and publication of paper is unsuitable, reviewer shall request the author for modification and betterment. If a reviewer has a question or requests for more information, such as an inquiry for data, the authors must comply.
• 10. If an author does not correspond within seven (7) days of reviewers' requests, the corresponding paper shall be resubmitted for the next volume.
• 11. The review process is held confidential.

Article 5 (Pronouncement of Reviewers)

The identities of appointed reviewers are held confidential.

Article 6 (Pronouncement of Reviewing Content)

The reviewing content are held confidential, solely informed to the author.

Article 7 (Types of Reviewing decision)

The reviewing decision may result in one of four (4) possible outcomes: “accept”, “accept after revision”, “resubmit after revision” or “reject”.

Article 8 (Comprehensive Decision)

• ① Publishable paper without any necessity of revision shall be decided as "accepted".
• ② A paper with distinct content and sufficient research result but needs modifications and complements shall be decided as "accept after revision". The author shall be requested of the specific modifications and complements. After a resubmission of revised paper by the author, reviewer shall decide after confirming the modifications and complements.
• ③ In the event that a paper is “resubmit after revision” with an insufficient or uncertain information, the author shall be notified of the specific reason(s) for the "resubmit after revision". If the result of the initial review is “resubmit after revision”, a request for a second review is made to an appointed reviewer.
• ④ A reviewer shall declare a paper “reject” if one or more of the following conditions apply. In the event that a paper is “reject”, the author shall be notified of the specific reason(s) for the rejection:
  • 1. The contribution of the paper to the journal is not clear and distinct.
  • 2. The content of paper is not technically sound.
  • 3. The content of the paper is not relevant to the Journal.
• ⑤ The example of comprehensive decision is as follows: revision

  Reviewer A	Reviewer B	Comprehensive Decision
  Accept as it is	Accept as it is	Accept as it is
  Accept as it is	Accept after revision	Accept after revision
  Accept after revision	Accept after	Accept after revision
  Accept as it is	Resubmit after revision	Resubmit after revision
  Accept as it is	Resubmit after revision	Resubmit after revision
  Resubmit after revision	Resubmit after revision	Resubmit after revision
  Accept as it is	Reject	A third review(Reviewer C)
  Accept as it is	Reject	A third review(Reviewer C)
  Resubmit after revision	Reject	Reject(Resubmit Allowed)
  Reject	Reject	Reject(Resubmit Prohibited)

  Reviewer C (A third review) Comprehensive Decision		Final acceptance decision of a revision
  		In case of one (1) Reviewer		In case of two (2) reviewers
  Accept as it is	Accept as it is	Accept as it is	Accept as it is	Accept as it is, Accept as it is	Accept as it is
  Accept after revision	Accept after revision	Accept after revision	Accept after revision	Accept as it is, Accept after revision	Accept after revision
  Reject	Reject	Reject	Reject	Accept after revision, Accept after revision	Accept after revision
  				Accept as it is, Reject	Reject*
  				Accept after revision, Reject	Reject*
  				Reject, Reject	Reject*

  * Declaration of "Reject" at the final acceptance decision of a revision, resubmission is prohibited

Article 10 (Appeals)

In the case of submitter appeals to a decision, author(a) shall file a written objection within seven (7) days from the date of dispatched letter of reviewing decision and request for a second review. Raising of an appeal is one (1) time only, and acceptance of an appeal shall be decided by the board. In this case, the board must notify the result of second review of corresponding paper to author(s) within one (1) week.

Article 11 (Language)

Only english shall be used. If the grammar or context of submitted paper is unclear or unreadable, either the board or reviewer shall recommend author to revise or submit the paper.

Article 12 (Convene of the Editorial Board)

To decide an acceptance of a paper, the board shall be convened under necessity. The editor-in-chief must attend the board meeting.

Article 13 (Term of Reviewing)

From the date of their appointment, reviewers are responsible for finalizing the review within 10 days for a standard paper and making recommendations.

Article 14 (Confirmation of Review)

The board shall dispatch a confirmation of acceptance letter to corresponding author within three (3) days of submitted confirmation of acceptance letter from reviewers.

Article 15 (Dismissal of Reviewer)

In the case of reviewer not submitting any opinion after ten (10) days of reviewing a paper, the editor-in-chief shall dismiss the request for a review. In this case, the paper must be returned to the board.

Article 16 (Supplementary Provision)

Matters that are not explicitly covered by these guidelines will be handled by the Editorial Board.

Addenda

1. The revision of this by-law must be deliberated by the board of editors and approved by the board of directors.

2. These Articles of Association shall be effective from the day of approval by the board of directors.

Policy enactment date: April 31, 1983
Policy revision date: February 23, 2000
Policy revision date: February 22, 2002
Policy revision date: December 10, 2004
Policy revision date: December 5, 2007
Policy revision date: December 16, 2016
Policy revision date: February 3, 2017
Policy revision date: October 12, 2017