The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
「핵의학기술」 심사규정
Mar. 23. 2023
Oct. 21. 2024
Apr. 04. 2026
Article 1 (Purpose)
These Regulations set forth matters concerning the peer review of manuscripts submitted to The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (KJNMT; hereinafter the “Journal”), published by the Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine Technology (KSNMT; hereinafter the “Society”).
These Regulations set forth matters concerning the peer review of manuscripts submitted to The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (KJNMT; hereinafter the “Journal”), published by the Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine Technology (KSNMT; hereinafter the “Society”).
Article 2 (Selection and Appointment of Reviewers)
(1) The Editor-in-Chief shall assign a handling editor to each submitted manuscript. The handling editor shall recommend reviewer candidates with expertise in the relevant field.
(2) The Editor-in-Chief shall appoint reviewers from among members of the Editorial Board or experts in fields related to nuclear medicine. A person who is affiliated with the same institution as an author or has financial, personal, academic, or other interests that may affect the fairness of the review shall not be appointed as a reviewer.
(3) An appointed reviewer who has a conflict of interest or determines that an impartial review cannot be conducted shall promptly notify the Editorial Board and recuse themselves from the review. The Editor-in-Chief shall appoint another reviewer.
(4) A manuscript submitted by an officer of the Society or a member of the Editorial Board shall be assigned to independent reviewers who have no conflict of interest with the author. The author concerned shall not participate in reviewer selection, peer review, or the publication decision.
(1) The Editor-in-Chief shall assign a handling editor to each submitted manuscript. The handling editor shall recommend reviewer candidates with expertise in the relevant field.
(2) The Editor-in-Chief shall appoint reviewers from among members of the Editorial Board or experts in fields related to nuclear medicine. A person who is affiliated with the same institution as an author or has financial, personal, academic, or other interests that may affect the fairness of the review shall not be appointed as a reviewer.
(3) An appointed reviewer who has a conflict of interest or determines that an impartial review cannot be conducted shall promptly notify the Editorial Board and recuse themselves from the review. The Editor-in-Chief shall appoint another reviewer.
(4) A manuscript submitted by an officer of the Society or a member of the Editorial Board shall be assigned to independent reviewers who have no conflict of interest with the author. The author concerned shall not participate in reviewer selection, peer review, or the publication decision.
Article 3 (Number of Reviewers)
Each manuscript shall, in principle, be reviewed by two reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers shall not be disclosed. However, if the review outcomes are substantially conflicting or if the Editor-in-Chief determines that an additional review is necessary, including to supplement expertise in the relevant field, one additional reviewer may be appointed.
Each manuscript shall, in principle, be reviewed by two reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers shall not be disclosed. However, if the review outcomes are substantially conflicting or if the Editor-in-Chief determines that an additional review is necessary, including to supplement expertise in the relevant field, one additional reviewer may be appointed.
Article 4 (Review of Invited Review Articles and Other Manuscripts)
Review articles and other manuscripts commissioned by the Editorial Board shall undergo the same peer-review process as regular submissions.
Review articles and other manuscripts commissioned by the Editorial Board shall undergo the same peer-review process as regular submissions.
Article 5 (Fairness and Confidentiality of Peer Review)
Reviewers shall conduct peer review fairly and objectively, meet the review deadline, and maintain confidentiality. Reviewers shall also respect the dignity of the authors and take care not to damage their reputation.
Reviewers shall conduct peer review fairly and objectively, meet the review deadline, and maintain confidentiality. Reviewers shall also respect the dignity of the authors and take care not to damage their reputation.
Article 6 (Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools)
(1) Artificial intelligence tools may be used only as an aid, and the final judgment and responsibility shall remain with the reviewer.
(2) A reviewer shall not upload or otherwise enter a manuscript under review or any confidential review material into an artificial intelligence tool for which confidentiality cannot be assured.
(3) If an artificial intelligence tool is used, the reviewer shall clearly report to the Editor-in-Chief the tool used, the purpose and scope of use, and the outcome of such use.
(1) Artificial intelligence tools may be used only as an aid, and the final judgment and responsibility shall remain with the reviewer.
(2) A reviewer shall not upload or otherwise enter a manuscript under review or any confidential review material into an artificial intelligence tool for which confidentiality cannot be assured.
(3) If an artificial intelligence tool is used, the reviewer shall clearly report to the Editor-in-Chief the tool used, the purpose and scope of use, and the outcome of such use.
Article 7 (Review Decisions)
A reviewer shall select only one of the following decisions:
1. Accept.
2. Accept after Revision.
3. Re-review after Revision.
4. Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision).
“Accept after Revision” means that the reviewer requests revisions or supplementary changes from the author and, after the author has adequately addressed the requests and resubmitted the manuscript, the Editorial Board may verify the revisions and accept the manuscript without returning it to the reviewers for further review.
A reviewer shall select only one of the following decisions:
1. Accept.
2. Accept after Revision.
3. Re-review after Revision.
4. Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision).
“Accept after Revision” means that the reviewer requests revisions or supplementary changes from the author and, after the author has adequately addressed the requests and resubmitted the manuscript, the Editorial Board may verify the revisions and accept the manuscript without returning it to the reviewers for further review.
Article 8 (Decision to Reject)
A reviewer may render a decision of “Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision)” if the manuscript lacks sufficient scholarly merit or fails to meet standards of research ethics. In such a case, the reviewer shall provide specific reasons for the decision.
A reviewer may render a decision of “Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision)” if the manuscript lacks sufficient scholarly merit or fails to meet standards of research ethics. In such a case, the reviewer shall provide specific reasons for the decision.
Article 9 (Determination of Review Outcomes)
If both reviewers render a decision of “Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision),” that decision shall be final. If only one reviewer renders that decision, the Editor-in-Chief may, after considering the review comments, either provide the author with an opportunity to revise the manuscript and proceed with re-review or appoint one additional reviewer. The specific publication decision shall be made in accordance with the Manuscript Review Decision Matrix in the Appendix. If an additional reviewer is appointed, the Editorial Board shall deliberate after considering all review comments, the author’s response, and the revisions made, and the Editor-in-Chief shall make the final decision.
If both reviewers render a decision of “Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision),” that decision shall be final. If only one reviewer renders that decision, the Editor-in-Chief may, after considering the review comments, either provide the author with an opportunity to revise the manuscript and proceed with re-review or appoint one additional reviewer. The specific publication decision shall be made in accordance with the Manuscript Review Decision Matrix in the Appendix. If an additional reviewer is appointed, the Editorial Board shall deliberate after considering all review comments, the author’s response, and the revisions made, and the Editor-in-Chief shall make the final decision.
Article 10 (Review Report and Review Period)
A reviewer shall prepare and submit a review report through the online manuscript submission and peer-review system within two weeks from the date of appointment.
A reviewer shall prepare and submit a review report through the online manuscript submission and peer-review system within two weeks from the date of appointment.
Article 11 (Measures for Delayed Reviews)
If a reviewer fails to submit a review report within two weeks without justifiable cause, the Editor-in-Chief shall send one reminder. If the reviewer still fails to submit the report within one week after the reminder, the review assignment shall be terminated, and the Editor-in-Chief may appoint another reviewer.
If a reviewer fails to submit a review report within two weeks without justifiable cause, the Editor-in-Chief shall send one reminder. If the reviewer still fails to submit the report within one week after the reminder, the review assignment shall be terminated, and the Editor-in-Chief may appoint another reviewer.
Article 12 (Notification of Review Results)
Upon completion of the review, the review result and the review report shall be communicated to the author through the online system.
Upon completion of the review, the review result and the review report shall be communicated to the author through the online system.
Article 13 (Appeals)
An author may appeal a review result. The appeal shall include logical grounds or a detailed explanation. Following deliberation, the Editorial Board may grant or deny the appeal.
An author may appeal a review result. The appeal shall include logical grounds or a detailed explanation. Following deliberation, the Editorial Board may grant or deny the appeal.
Article 14 (Deadline for Submission of Revised Manuscripts)
If an author fails, without justifiable cause, to submit a revised and supplemented manuscript to the Society within four weeks from the date on which the request for revision and supplementation was received, the submission shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be classified as “Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision)” due to delayed submission.
If an author fails, without justifiable cause, to submit a revised and supplemented manuscript to the Society within four weeks from the date on which the request for revision and supplementation was received, the submission shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be classified as “Reject (Resubmission after Substantial Revision)” due to delayed submission.
Article 15 (Final Publication Decision)
The Editorial Board shall deliberate on the review results and the outcome of any requested revisions and supplementary changes. The Editor-in-Chief shall make the final decision on publication.
The Editorial Board shall deliberate on the review results and the outcome of any requested revisions and supplementary changes. The Editor-in-Chief shall make the final decision on publication.
Appendix: Manuscript Review Decision Matrix
|
Accept |
Accept after |
Re-review after |
Reject |
Final Decision |
|
2 |
|
|
|
Accept |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
Accept after Revision |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
Accept after Revision |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
Re-review after Revision |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Reject |