Evaluation Process

 

1. Purpose

The following guidelines apply to all the articles that are submitted to Canon and Culture. According to the rules set forth here, manuscripts will be selected for publication after reviewed by an editorial board.

​

2. Procedures for Peer Review

The journal’s peer-review procedures are as follows: 

1) Submission due date: article submissions are allowed until two months before the publication.

2) Disqualification: submitted articles that do not conform to the style and length requirements of the journal will not be reviewed.

 

3) Peer-review request: the editor-in-chief appoints three peer reviewers and requests them to evaluate the submitted articles. Reviewers are chosen based on their level of expertise closely if not adjacently related to the article’s topic. The editorial board has the right to issue a final decision on the article’s publication.

 

4) Peer Review: author’s personal information in the submitted manuscript is to be deleted before being assigned to the reviewer. The identity of the reviewer and the review result are kept confidential.

 

5) Decisions for publication: each reviewer will evaluate the article based on the stated guidelines and recommends a decision: 1) publication accepted, 2) accept after revisions, or 3) publication denied. Reviewers need to provide the basis of a decision in detail. In the case of a conditional acceptance, the reviewer must clearly explain the parts that require revisions.

 

6) Decisions of the editorial board: the editor-in-chief summons an editorial meeting and evaluates the comments provided by the appointed peer reviewers.

       ① If all of the reviewers decide to accept the article for publication, it is published without revisions.

       ② If one or more reviewers decide to accept the article after revisions, the editorial board requests the author to make the recommended revisions. The author must faithfully address the recommended revisions. If the author objects to the revision request or disagrees with the decision, a petition for reconsideration may be filed. The revised article is subject to a peer-review process again and will be published when deemed acceptable.

       ③ If two or more reviewers decide that the article is not acceptable for publication, the publication of the article will be denied.

 

3. Criteria for Evaluation

1) Articles will be evaluated based on the criteria set forth in below (see no. 2) and will receive a mark in each of the itemized criteria shown on the evaluation sheet. The evaluation marks include, “Excellent (A),” “Good (B),” or “Unacceptable (F).”

2) The evaluative criteria include:

① Appropriateness of the scope

② Relevance and originality of the thesis

③ Creativity of the research method

④ Logical structure

⑤ Persuasiveness of the conclusion

⑥ Scholarly applicability and contribution

⑦ Appropriateness of the references

⑧ Completeness of the writing

⑨ Appropriateness of the abstracts

⑩ Structure of the writing

3) Based on the evaluation of itemized criteria and detailed review comments, the peer reviewer recommends a final decision (publication accepted, after revisions, or denied) on the evaluation sheet.

4) In the case of a book review, evaluation of the itemized criteria is not required. A final decision is made based on detailed review comments along with final evaluation.

4. Any issues that are not covered by the guidelines are decided by the editor-in-chief according to the standard practice.