Review Policy

Mar. 23. 2023

Oct. 21. 2024

 

1. Purpose: The purpose of these regulations is to establish the process for reviewing manuscripts submitted to the journal Nuclear Medicine Technology published by the Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

 

2. Selection of Reviewers: Reviewers are chosen from the editorial board and experts in nuclear medicine. To avoid conflicts of interest, the editorial chair can appoint external reviewers from related societies if any issues like affiliation or financial interests arise. When selecting reviewers, those affiliated with the same institution as the author or those with potential conflicts of interest with the author will be excluded. If a selected reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author, they must immediately notify the editorial board via email (kjnmt1977@gmail.com). Upon recognizing this fact, the editorial committee immediately replaces the reviewer.

 

3. Reviewer Selection Process: Submitted manuscripts are assigned to an editorial board member by the Editor-in-Chief, and the assigned editor selects expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers confirm their selection via email. The entire process is conducted through the online submission system. The number of Reviewers are each manuscript will be reviewed by two reviewers, and the names of the reviewers are kept confidential.

 

4. Review of Manuscripts Submitted by Society Executives and Editorial Board Members: Manuscripts submitted by society executives or editorial board members will be reviewed by independent reviewers who have no conflicts of interest with the authors. These reviewers will be selected from outside experts or individuals who are not society executives or editorial board members.

 

5. Review Process for All Types of Articles: Review articles and other types of submissions are reviewed according to the same process as regular research manuscripts.

 

6. Fairness and Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to conduct the review process fairly and objectively while maintaining confidentiality and meeting deadlines. They must also respect the dignity of the authors and ensure their reputation is not harmed.

 

7. Review Outcome: The reviewer must provide one of the following decisions:

Acceptable for publication

Acceptable with revisions

Revisions and re-review

Rejected (requiring major revisions and re-submission)

If the decision is “Acceptable with revisions,” it means that the reviewer has requested revisions, and once the author makes the necessary changes and resubmits, the editorial committee will confirm it without further review.

 

8. Inadequate Academic Value or Research Ethics: If the manuscript lacks academic value or fails to meet research ethics standards, the reviewer can decide it is “Not Acceptable for Publication (Requires Major Revisions and Resubmission).” In such cases, the reviewer must provide specific reasons for the judgment.

 

9. Decision by Two Reviewers: If both reviewers deem the manuscript unsuitable for publication, the final decision will be “Not Acceptable for Publication (Requires Major Revisions and Resubmission).” If only one reviewer makes this judgment, the manuscript will be subject to a re-review. 

 

10. Review Report Submission: Reviewers must submit their review reports online within two weeks of being appointed as reviewers.

 

11. Failure to Submit Review: If a reviewer fails to submit the review report within two weeks without a valid reason, the editorial chair will send a reminder. If the report is still not submitted within one week of the reminder, the reviewer’s appointment will be terminated, and another reviewer will be appointed.

 

12. Notification of Review Outcome: After the review is complete, the decision, along with the review comments, will be sent to the author online.

 

13. Appeal Process: If the author disagrees with the review results, they may submit a detailed explanation with logical reasoning via email(kjnmt1977@gmail.com) to the editorial board. The editorial board will review the appeal through a meeting and decide whether to accept or reject it. The final decision will be communicated to the appellant via email.

 

14. Submission Deadline for Revisions: If the author fails to submit a revised version of the manuscript within four weeks after receiving a request for modifications and improvements, and without a valid reason, the submission will be considered withdrawn. In this case, the manuscript will be judged as “Not Acceptable for Publication (Requires Major Revisions and Resubmission).”

 

15. Final Decision on Publication: The review and revision results are reviewed by the editorial board. The final decision on whether the manuscript will be published is made by the editorial chair.