Article 1 (Name)
These Regulations are referred to as the regulations for the review of papers of the Journal of Cosmetic Medicine, the official journal of KSKCS & KCCS (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations").
Article 2 (Objective)
The purpose of the Regulations is to comply with the president's advice for smooth publication of the journal by stipulating important matters concerning the review of papers.
Article 3 (Scope of application)
The Editor-in-chief of KSKCS & KCCS is appointed as editor.
Article 4 (Reception of papers)
1. Submit papers at any time.
2. The submitted manuscript shall be dated and assigned a unique number upon examination.
3. The consent form for copyright must be used as specified in KSKCS & KCCS. The consent shall also include the title, date, the English name of all authors, the signatures of all authors, and the addresses of the correspondents, their email addresses, and contact numbers.
Article 5 (Selection criteria and appointment of judges)
1. There shall be two judges per dissertation.
2. The members of the Board of Audit and Inspection shall be selected from the editorial committee and authoritative members who have attained excellent achievements in research and the field of plastic surgery.
3. Members of the editorial committee shall be selected according to the rules of the editorial committee.
4. Appointment of the judges is decided by the editor in chief or co-editor in chief, and if there is a situation where the appointed judge can not proceed with the examination, another judge shall be immediately appointed.
5. In the commissioning of judges, the judges of universities and hospitals where the examinee works, and the judges who may have vested interests, should be avoided, and foreign scholars may participate.
6. The editor-in-chief of the editorial committee shall immediately notify the committee members of their selection as judges of a specific thesis and request the review of the thesis, and pay the prescribed examination fee to them.
Article 6 (Duties of the judges)
1. The judges should take an objective and rigorous review of the thesis according to the scholarly style and academic judgment in consideration of recent major academic trends.
2. The subject matter of review shall be adjudicated considering the subject’s suitability, originality of the contents, clarity of logic, and academic contribution.
3. The judges shall examine the submitted manuscripts within the specified period after commissioning and submit the thesis review to the submission system.
4. If the requested manuscript cannot be reviewed, it shall be placed in the submission system and noted as unable to be reviewed.
5. If duplicate publication or secondary publication is suspected, the judges should report it immediately to the editorial committee.
6. The members of the Jury must attend the editorial committee meeting when deemed necessary.
Article 7 (The duties and rights of the editorial committee)
1. The list of judges shall not be revealed to the contributor.
2. The content of the examination shall be kept confidential and shall not be published by the author, the editor-in-chief nor the relevant editorial committee. If duplicate publication or secondary publication is suspected, the editorial committee should report immediately.
3. The results shall be sent to the authors within one week after receiving the thesis review by the judges.
4. The editorial committee shall leave all the procedures, processes and results of the review in the submission system.
Article 8 (Adoption of thesis)
1. The editor-in-chief shall decide whether to publish the thesis after it has passed the examination by the judges.
2. The evaluation results are divided into four categories: ACCEPT, MINOR REVISION, MAJOR REVISION and REJECT.
3. A paper that both have determined as "REJECT" will not be adopted. In the case that only one of the judges classifies a paper as a"REJECT", the decision of the editorial committee or of a third committee member shall be followed.
4. In principle, a paper that has been determined as "ACCEPT" shall be adopted without modification, but it may be corrected by the editorial committee if a problem has not been detected by the assessor.
5. If determined as "MINOR REVISION" or "MAJOR REVISION", the correspondent author shall submit to the editorial committee a revised thesis addressing the comments of the assessor to the online submission system.
6. In case of "MINOR REVISION" or "MAJOR REVISION", the judges will re-evaluate the thesis after the changes have been made.
7. If necessary, the editorial committee reviews the decision and the editor in chief decides whether to adopt it or not.
Article 9 (Non-publishing)
If the editor in chief acknowledges that the article belongs to one of the following paragraphs, he shall determine it to be a "REJECT" and clarify the reasons for that.
1. A dissertation that has already been or is scheduled to be published in other journals or other periodicals, including important parts, tables, and pictures of the manuscript.
2. Both judges classified it as “REJECT”.
3. In case the purpose and scope of the thesis are unsuitable for the journal.
4. If the thesis does not follow the criteria of evaluation (i.e., ethics, originality, clarity of logic and academic significance) then it will be deemed as “REJECT”.
5. Any other reason that may deem it to be inappropriate to publish in this journal.
Article 10 (Subcommittee)
When necessary, a subcommittee composed of specialist editorial members may be convened for a limited period of time to decide whether to adopt the paper. In this case, the editor-in-chief and the secretary must attend the subcommittee.
Article 11 (Confidentiality clause)
Any information reviewed that is deemed to be confidential must be kept confidential.
Article 12 (Objection)
1. Contributors who want to disclose opposing views or opinions or opinions about the judging opinions, revision requests and reasons for review of the judges may file a written objection to the editorial committee.
2. The editorial committee should actively review the appeal, and anonymously negotiate the exchange of opinions between the contributor and the judges. If the differences in opinion cannot be resolved, the editorial committee will decide whether the allegation is valid or not.
3. The contributor can not appeal the final decision of the editorial committee. The modification period shall be two months based on the notification date of the examination result. If it exceeds 6 months, it will be regarded as a withdrawal of the submission.
Effective December 27, 2018 with the approval of the KSKCS & KCCS Board of Directors.