Paper Review Regulation

Enacted: 2024. 09. 04

Revised: 2026. 04. 09

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these regulations is to ensure the academic quality and research ethics of papers submitted for publication in the journal of the Korean Academy of Space Security (KASS) by establishing the review procedures and evaluation criteria for submitted manuscripts.

Article 2 (Reviewers) All submitted papers shall be reviewed by at least two reviewers recommended by the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor shall make the final decision regarding publication.

Article 3 (Decision on Publication)

1. Review results shall be classified as follows: “Accepted”, “Accepted after Revision”, “Reconsider after Revision”, “Rejected”.

2. The final decision regarding publication shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor based on the reviewers’ evaluations.

3. A paper may be accepted for publication when two or more appointed reviewers unanimously recommend “Accepted.” However, if the reviewers’ opinions conflict, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a third reviewer for an additional review on one occasion only.

4. For papers evaluated as “Accepted,” if minor revisions are requested, the paper shall be published after confirmation of the revisions by the Editorial Director.

5. For papers evaluated as “Accepted after Revision,” authors shall revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. The paper shall be regarded as accepted once the Editor-in-Chief confirms that the revisions have been adequately addressed.

6. Papers evaluated as “Reconsider after Revision” may be resubmitted to the original reviewer(s) for further review.

7. If a reviewer determines that a paper falls under any of the following categories, the paper shall be evaluated as “Rejected,” and the reasons must be clearly specified: ① Lack of originality, ② Insufficient distinction from existing literature or inadequate analysis and discussion, ③ Significant errors in content, ④ Other reasons rendering the paper unsuitable for publication in the journal

8. All reviewer evaluations must include explanatory comments and reasons for the decision.

9. Requests by authors for reconsideration of review results shall, in principle, not be accepted.

10. If no response is received from the author for more than three (3) months after notification of the review results, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor may determine the paper as “Rejected.”

Article 4 (Confidentiality)

1. The identities of reviewers shall not be disclosed. However, authors may disclose their own identities to reviewers if necessary.

2. The contents of the review shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the author.

Article 5 (Exchange of Opinions) Reviewers and authors may exchange opinions through the mediation of the Editorial Director.

Article 6 (Review Period) Reviewers shall complete their evaluations within three (3) weeks from the date on which the review request is received.

Article 7 (Review Honorarium) A designated review honorarium may be provided to reviewers.