Peer Review Policy

1. Review Process

JBAS reviews all manuscripts submitted through the ACCOMS+ manuscript submission system (or the editorial committee email, jlsk24@naver.com). We first review the manuscript for compliance with the format and the journal's aims and scope. If the manuscript meets these two criteria, a similarity check is conducted to verify any instances of plagiarism or duplicate publication. Reviewers, who are field researchers with relevant knowledge, receive the results after checking them. JBAS assigns two or more reviewers based on the editorial board's decision, and the manuscript is sent to the reviewers.

Double-blind peer review: The manuscript may be publicly disclosed through preprints, but the review process is conducted with the authors’ names and affiliations removed from the manuscript.

All papers must meet the acceptance criteria, which are based on the research's quality, originality, and significance. The acceptance of the paper is determined by the reviewers' critiques and recommendations. The initial decision is made within 4 weeks after the paper's submission, and the reviewers' comments are sent to the corresponding author via email. The corresponding author must specify the revisions made in response to the reviewers' comments item by item. If the revised manuscript is not resubmitted within one week after the editorial decision, it will be considered withdrawn. The author must email the editorial board at jlsk24@naver.com if more revision time is required. The editor will communicate the final decision on publication acceptance/rejection to the corresponding author.

Reviewing criteria: Every article submitted to JBAS should be reviewed according to the following criteria. The review member must complete the examination using the ACOMS+ online submission system within the specified deadline.

1) Appropriateness of the topic and title (10 points): Do the topic and title fall within the scope of the JBAS and comprehensively reflect the content?

2) Originality and Creativity of the Topic (10 points): Does the topic display the researcher's own perspective and enhance or replace preexisting ideas and interpretations?

3) Problem statement appropriateness, objective clarity, and persuasiveness (10 points): Is the problem statement appropriate, and are the research's purpose and necessity expressed in an understandable and convincing manner?

4) Method validity and appropriateness (10 points): Was the research methodology conducted in a way that was both valid and acceptable for the topic and the purpose?

5) Argument Clarity, Logical Development, and Argumentation Consistency (10 points): Is the argument given in a clear and coherent manner, and is the process of logical development and argumentation properly and consistently organized?

6) Completeness and Results of the Research (10 points): Is the research content well-organized, and are the research results presented in a valid and clear manner?

7) Comprehensiveness of Related Literature (Previous Research) and Data Analysis (10 points): Does the study include pertinent citations, analyze preexisting ideas, and offer fresh perspectives that advance knowledge of the topic?

8) Clarity of Expression and Appropriateness (10 points): Are the theories, concepts, terminology, expressions, images, and ideas used clear and appropriate?

9) Adherence to Paper Format (5 points): Does it adhere to the JBAS's submission guidelines and manuscript format?

10) Accuracy of references, footnotes, and citations (5 points): Do the references, footnotes, and citations in the text adhere to the JBAS citation style?

11) Academic Value (10 points): Does the manuscript advance the JBAS and the field of study in question?

Decision

2. Review of manuscripts submitted by editors, staff, or editorial board members 

All manuscripts from members of the editorial board are processed the same as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the selection of reviewers or decision-making.