GUIDE FOR REVIEWER
Reviewer Selection and Appointment
1. Reviewers are recommended by the Editorial Board and appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers are limited to leading researchers in this field with a track record of published papers. The names of the reviewers are not disclosed.
2. The reviewer invited from the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board should submit the decision whether to review or decline to review the article within 3 days. If the reviewer accept the invitation, the reviewer should complete reviewing within 14 days.
3. When invited reviewers do not give a review of the assigned paper within 14 days after agreeing to do the review, they are no longer considered as reviewers and continued access to the concerned paper will not be allowed.
1. Reviewers are assigned to a submitted paper for review. Anything indicating identification of authors is removed from the papers assigned for review. The invited reviewers should give a review of the assigned paper within 14 days after agreeing to do review.
2. Reviewers classify the paper as accepted in present form, accept, minor revision (accepted after minor revisions), major revision (reconsidered for acceptance after major changes), and reject at this stage.
3. When the paper is evaluated as minor revision (accepted after minor revisions), the reviewers should specify where should be made corrections. Revised papers are put under a second review by the reviewers or the Editorial Board members to determine whether they are acceptable in revised form.
4. When a paper is evaluated as major revision (reconsidered for acceptance after major change), the reviewers should specify where should be made corrections. Revised papers are put under a second review by the reviewers or the Editorial Board members to determine whether they are acceptable in revised form.
5. When the paper is rejected at this stage, the reviewers should cite specific reasons as to how the decision was reached.
6. Review results will be sent to the authors once the required reviews are completed.
7. Reviewers should post review results on the website of the Journal of Korea proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation association.
As a peer-reviewed journal, review is a critical element in the editorial process at Journal of Korea proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation association. In approaching a review, you can refer to the followings as an objective criteria.
1. Research process, results and conclusion should be firmly structured.
1) Research subject
(1) High levels of understanding for research assignment
(2) A certain framework set for carrying out research
(3) A concise and clear statement of research objectives
(4) A scope of research
2) Data collection and methods
(1) Appropriate date and information collection and organized use of trial outcomes
(2) Academic approaches based on a certain theory
(3) A detailed description of how extraordinary methods or apparatus are used in trials. A clear statement of the definitions of terms and trial data used in the paper (4) A clear statement of any factors in the course of the trials
3) Date analysis and discussion
(1) A right demonstration of creativity and logicality in research with a proper analysis of collected data by using good methods and discussion of the objective of the research
(2) An objective analysis of collected data on a variety of angles
4) References Citations for how the questions were addressed in other studies
(1) A review of how the research conclusion was reached based on collected data and analysis results
(2) A concise and comprehensive summary taking into account the whole picture
2. The research process, results and conclusion should be firmly structured.
- A use of organized and scientific methods and flawless procedures.
- A review of how the precise conclusion was gained from the research results.
- Originality is required for the development of academic research.
- Facts and evidence build a good paper.
- Research results should be stated as they are. Other arguments or theories belonging to the other parties should not be treated as your own.
- If needed, anyone should be able to reproduce what was done in the trials and the papers. Evidence to support arguments, sources of information, research procedures and methods, approaches to research, evaluation standards, etc. should be clearly stated.