1. The review, selection, publishing order, and the printing system of the papers published in the journal are delegated to the editorial board, and the manuscripts already submitted will not be returned to the submitters. However, if the paper is denied of publication, it may be returned online at the submitter’s request.
2. The society will send a receipt of submission after a paper has been submitted to the society.

1. The submitted papers will be delegated to the reviewers online. However, an exception may be made if the reviewer requests for a post delivery.
2. The manuscripts submitted in Clause 1 will be processed speedily according to the following review process.

1.The reviewers will hold an editorial meeting to gather the opinions of the members of the editorial board to make an open selection, after which the editor-in-chief will make the appointment.
2. The review of the submitted papers will be conducted by appointing 3 experts from a similar field. However, an exception is made for technical notes.

1. The reviewers must complete their review within 3 weeks after the request, and send their reviewer comments with the paper to the editorial board.
2. The editorial board sends the copy of the reviewers’ comments to the authors within 1 week.
3. If the manuscript in Clause 1 does not arrive by the prescribed time without any special reason, the editor-in-chief sends an official document urging the delivery, and if the manuscript does not arrive within 2 weeks, the editor-in-chief may appoint a new reviewer. In this case, the manuscript requesting review should be returned to the director of editorial board.

The urgent review system completes the first round of review within 1 week of submission and rapidly judges whether the paper will be published. The fee is 240,000 won. However, if the paper is declared to require “revision” and thus not cleared for publishing, the decision for publishing may be delayed.

1. The list of reviewers should not be disclosed on any accounts, and the author shall not be revealed at the appointment of reviewers
2. Any items related to the results of the review will only be disclosed to the authors and not to any other external parties
3. The review of the papers will be conducted by 3 reviewers appointed anonymously by the editorial board, or by 2 such reviews plus the director of editorial board or a editorial board members who may take on the role of the third reviewer.
4. The submitter must send a comprehensive reply regarding the questions, supplementations, indications made by the reviewers within 2 months. If there is no such reply, the review of the paper will automatically be rendered invalid.
5. The result will be placed under one of the following categories:

01. Accepted: papers that can be selected without any modifications to the manuscripts
02. Accepted, with minor revision: papers that have minor items for modification and that can be published after the editorial board’s confirmation without additional review by the reviewers
03. Revision: papers that have major items for modification or that have content that need to be supplemented, the result of which need to be re-examined by the reviewers
04. Rejection: papers whose content and standard is judged to be not appropriate or qualified enough to be published on the journal

The editorial board will decide whether the papers will be published or not based on the opinions given by the reviewers and the editorial board. If the author is requested to modify the paper but does not submit a modified version of the paper within 6 months without a valid reason, the paper will be considered to be denied of publication, and the author will have to go through the submission process from the beginning if he or she wants to re-submit. However, if the author needs a considerable length of time to modify the paper due to additional experiments etc. he or she may extend the modification period by obtaining the approval of the corresponding editorial board member.

2. Papers whose authors did not submit modified manuscripts and reply within 6 months of receiving a request for revision.
3. Papers whose authors did not submit a reply within 2 months of receiving inquiries from the editorial board
4. If a paper is denied for publication, the reviewer who reviewed the paper must specifically define the reasons for the rejection, and also return the paper and notify the author of the reasons for rejection through review reports etc. at the author’s request.

If authors wish to raise objects to the review results, they may apply once in writing to the editorial board within 1 months from the day on which the final review result was made. The editor-in-chief will review the application and may either process it himself or discuss it with the editorial board. The result will be notified to the author in written form.

1. If a scientifically serious error is discovered in a paper after its publication, the author, the director of editorial board, the editor-in-chief, editorial board members, or reviewer may request for a retraction. The editorial board may decide upon its retraction upon deliberation, in which case it has to reveal the specific reasons.
2. Under such circumstances as above, the editor-in-chief must announce the retraction in the journal and delete the paper in the electronic journal.