Committee Regulation

1. General Rules

1. This board is referred to as editorial board of “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos.”
2. This board resides within Instituto de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad Nacional de Seúl; Institute of Latin American Studies at Seoul National University.

2. Composition

1. Editorial board is comprised of an editor, members and an editorial assistant.
2. Editorial board is comprised of around 15 for all subject matters.
3. Editor is appointed by the director at the recommendation and approval of management committee for a renewable two-year term.
4. Editorial board members are recommended by editor among subject matter specialists with a good academic track record and appointed by the director after approval from management committee. The tenure is a renewal two-year term.

3. Activity

1. Editorial board oversees business related to journals published by the Institute.
2. Editorial board determines the system, publication frequency and volume of the Institute’s academic journal “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” and academic publications issued by the Institute as well as submission guidelines and review criteria.
3. Editorial board regularly convenes in line with journal publication in order to review submitted articles and to decide on the selection of reviewers and accepted articles.
4. Editorial board decides with a majority vote of presenting board members in the presence of more than half of board members convened at the request of editor.

4. Review Criteria for Articles

1. Logicality and plausibility of hypothesis development (20 points)
2. Appropriateness and clarity of arguments (20 points)
3. Creativity of content (20 points)
4. Academic contribution (20 points)
5. Understanding of prior literature (10 points)
6. Clarity of expression and consistency of form (10 points)

5. Article Review Process

1. Eligibility of reviewer: Editorial board appoints three reviewers for each article. Reviewers are selected among subject matter specialists with an excellent academic track record.
2. Selection criteria and process for reviewers: Reviewers are selected from professional reviewers registered in the Institute’s reviewer pool with the same area of specialty as the submitted article.
3. Review request: Editor forwards the submitted article, a review request and the Institute’s article evaluation form to relevant reviewers after filling out the review request. In order to maintain the fairness of article review, the name and institution of the contributor shall remain anonymous. The existence of a research grant should not be noted in the submitted article for review and instead included in draft after acceptance is confirmed.
4. Review and reporting of review outcome: Each reviewer evaluates and grades the assigned article according to the 5-level grading scheme of A, B, C, D and E.

   Points	A+	A	B+	B	C+	C	D+	D	E+	E
   20	20	18	16	14	12	10	8	6	4	2
   10	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1

   • Criteria for converting each grade into numerical points in the review are as follows.
   • Reviewer should forward the decision, comments and requests for amendments on the submitted article to editor after appropriate formatting. In order to protect anonymity of the reviewer, the article review form should have reviewer institution, title and name blank.
   • Reviewer shall not reveal or abuse any information obtained in the review process, and the contributor and reviewer may make comments only through editorial board.
5. Review decision and appeal: With the review decision, editor should convene editorial board within 1 week to inform on the review decision. Rules on determining the review decision are as follows.
   
   • Reject: Average score of three reviewers is below 70
   • Revise and resubmit: Average score of three reviewers is greater than or equal to 70, but below 80
   • Revise and accept: Average score of three reviewers is greater than or equal to 80, but below 90
   • Accept: Average score of three reviewers is greater than or equal to 90
6. Notification of review decision: According to discussion on review outcome, editor may propose modifications/corrections to the submitted article to the contributor, and notify the final outcome “accept,” “revise and accept,” “revise and resubmit,” or “reject.” Contributor receiving “revise and accept” should follow suggested revisions or submit a reasonable response in writing if decided to not follow the suggested revisions. Article receiving “revise and resubmit” should receive decision of “accept” after revision and another round of review by reviewers. Article receiving “reject” and article not responding to the proposal of revisions will not be published. For articles whose publication is confirmed, editor should request the contributor for a finalized copy of draft. For articles whose rejection is confirmed by editorial board, notification of rejection should be communicated to the contributor.
7. Even after publication or decision has been made for “accept,” any violation of plagiarism shall invite restrictions according to “Revista Asiática de Estudios Iberoamericanos” Rules of Ethics.