Review Policy

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

The Journal of Wellbeing Management and Applied Psychology (JWMAP), owned, managed, and published by KODISA Foundation, operates a double-blind peer-review process.

During external peer review, the identities of authors and reviewers are normally concealed from each other.

Authors must therefore submit:

1. a separate Title Page containing identifying information; and
2. a Blinded Main Manuscript from which author-identifying information has been removed.

The blinded manuscript should not contain:

• author names;
• institutional affiliations;
• acknowledgements that reveal author identity;
• author-identifying headers or footers; or
• other information that unnecessarily identifies the authors.

The separate Title Page should include, where applicable:

• manuscript title;
• full names of all authors;
• institutional affiliations;
• corresponding author's name and contact information;
• ORCID identifiers;
• acknowledgements;
• funding information;
• competing-interest or conflict-of-interest statement; and
• Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies.

Authors may cite their own previously published work when academically necessary. Such citations should remain accurate and complete, but authors should avoid unnecessary wording that directly reveals their identity during peer review.

After final acceptance, author information and acknowledgements are restored for production and publication.

2. Initial Administrative and Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the JWMAP Editorial Office before external peer review.

The initial screening may include verification of:

• completeness of submission files;
• compliance with the official JWMAP Manuscript Template;
• conformity with the Aims and Scope of JWMAP;
• title page and blinded manuscript preparation;
• authorship and affiliation information;
• required declarations;
• research ethics information;
• ethics approval and informed consent, where applicable;
• competing-interest disclosures;
• funding information;
• data availability information, where applicable;
• generative AI disclosure, where applicable;
• citation and reference completeness;
• open-access and publication requirements;
• similarity or text-overlap screening; and
• general methodological and scholarly suitability.

Manuscripts that are incomplete or do not comply with administrative, technical, formatting, or ethical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further consideration.

Serious concerns regarding research integrity, publication ethics, fabricated or unreliable material, inappropriate AI use, duplicate submission, or other substantial policy violations may result in rejection at the initial screening stage.

3. Desk Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor.

The desk review determines whether the manuscript:

• falls within the current Aims and Scope of JWMAP;
• addresses a scientifically or scholarly relevant question;
• demonstrates sufficient originality;
• has an appropriate research design;
• applies suitable research methods;
• presents adequate data or evidence;
• satisfies relevant ethical requirements;
• meets minimum standards of academic writing and reporting; and
• is suitable for evaluation by external reviewers.

JWMAP considers scientifically appropriate research using quantitative, qualitative, experimental, observational, mixed-methods, systematic-review, meta-analytic, environmental, occupational, physiological, behavioral, computational, artificial-intelligence, machine-learning, wearable, sensor-based, and related methodologies consistent with the journal's Aims and Scope.

The legitimate use of artificial intelligence or machine learning as a scientific research methodology is not itself a reason for rejection.

However, such methods must be transparently reported, scientifically justified, and appropriately validated.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it:

• falls outside the journal's Aims and Scope;
• lacks sufficient originality or scientific contribution;
• has fundamental methodological deficiencies;
• lacks adequate scientific evidence;
• fails to satisfy essential ethical requirements;
• contains serious integrity concerns; or
• is otherwise unsuitable for external peer review.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass desk review are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject-matter and methodological expertise.

For manuscripts involving specialized methodologies, the Editorial Office may select reviewers with expertise in areas such as:

• environmental health;
• occupational health and safety;
• human physiology;
• applied psychology;
• human factors and ergonomics;
• epidemiology;
• environmental exposure assessment;
• experimental methods;
• qualitative research;
• structural equation modeling;
• systematic review or meta-analysis;
• artificial intelligence;
• machine learning;
• computational analysis;
• wearable or sensor technologies; or
• other specialized methods relevant to the manuscript.

Additional reviewers may be invited when:

• reviewer recommendations differ substantially;
• specialized methodological expertise is required;
• ethical or statistical clarification is needed; or
• the responsible editor determines that additional independent evaluation would improve the editorial decision.

5. External Peer Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript independently and objectively.

Depending on the study design, reviewers may consider:

• relevance to the Aims and Scope of JWMAP;
• originality;
• scientific or scholarly contribution;
• significance of the research question;
• appropriateness of the theoretical or scientific background;
• research design;
• sample or data source;
• measurement quality;
• reliability and validity;
• methodology;
• statistical, qualitative, computational, or other analytical procedures;
• transparency and reproducibility;
• ethical compliance;
• accuracy and adequacy of data presentation;
• interpretation of findings;
• consistency between results and conclusions;
• limitations;
• adequacy and accuracy of citations and references;
• clarity of presentation; and
• overall contribution to the relevant field.

Reviewers should distinguish between:

• essential scientific or methodological revisions; and
• optional suggestions intended to improve presentation.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial decision.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may provide recommendations such as:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Re-review after Revision
• Reject

A reviewer recommendation is considered together with the reviewer's reasoning, the scientific merits of the manuscript, other reviewer reports, and the independent judgment of the responsible editor.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor in accordance with JWMAP editorial policy.

Generative AI systems do not make final editorial decisions.

7. Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the responsible editor evaluates the reviewer reports and the manuscript.

The editorial decision may be:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Re-review after Revision
• Reject

When reviewer opinions differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor may:

• assess the different recommendations independently;
• request clarification from a reviewer;
• invite an additional independent reviewer;
• consult another qualified editor;
• consult the Editorial Board; or
• request further information or analysis from the authors.

The final decision should be based on the manuscript's:

• scientific quality;
• originality;
• methodological adequacy;
• validity of evidence;
• research integrity;
• ethical compliance;
• transparency;
• relevance to the journal; and
• overall scholarly contribution.

A numerical majority of reviewer recommendations does not, by itself, determine the final decision.

8. Revision and Response to Reviewers

When revision is required, authors should submit:

1. a revised manuscript; and
2. a detailed Response to Reviewers.

The response should address each substantive comment.

Authors should clearly indicate:

• what changes were made;
• where changes were made in the revised manuscript; and
• the academic or methodological reason when a suggested revision was not adopted.

Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion when there is a valid scientific reason not to do so, but disagreements should be explained respectfully and with appropriate evidence.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by:

• the Handling Editor;
• the Editor-in-Chief;
• the original reviewers; or
• additional reviewers

depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

9. Re-Review

A revised manuscript may undergo additional external peer review when:

• major methodological changes have been made;
• substantial new data or analyses have been added;
• key reviewer concerns require independent verification;
• the original reviewers requested re-review;
• significant scientific questions remain unresolved; or
• the responsible editor considers additional review necessary.

The journal may use the original reviewers or select new reviewers when appropriate.

10. Reviewer Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and review-related materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• disclose manuscript content to unauthorized persons;
• distribute manuscript files;
• discuss unpublished research outside the authorized peer-review process;
• use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
• retain or reuse confidential material improperly; or
• disclose confidential author information obtained during review.

Unpublished findings, data, methods, images, or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used by reviewers in their own work without appropriate authorization.

11. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose circumstances that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent evaluation.

Potential conflicts may involve:

• recent collaboration;
• close professional relationships;
• personal relationships;
• financial interests;
• institutional relationships;
• direct academic competition; or
• other circumstances that may affect impartiality.

A reviewer who cannot provide an independent and objective evaluation should decline the review invitation.

The Editorial Office may replace a reviewer when a significant conflict of interest becomes apparent.

12. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers should provide reviews that are:

• independent;
• objective;
• evidence-based;
• constructive;
• professionally expressed; and
• relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers should avoid:

• personal criticism;
• insulting or discriminatory language;
• unsupported allegations;
• requests unrelated to scientific improvement;
• coercive citation;
• citation requests intended primarily to increase citations to themselves, the journal, an editor, or another person; and
• inappropriate demands that exceed the scholarly needs of the manuscript.

When reviewers identify possible misconduct or serious ethical concerns, they should notify the editor rather than directly accuse the authors in unnecessarily adversarial language.

13. Generative AI and Peer Review

Reviewers must comply with the current JWMAP Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy.

Reviewers must not upload confidential peer-review material to external generative AI systems.

This prohibition includes:

• complete manuscripts;
• manuscript excerpts;
• abstracts;
• tables;
• figures;
• images;
• datasets;
• supplementary files;
• unpublished findings;
• author-identifying information; and
• other confidential review material.

Reviewers must not use generative AI to replace their own scholarly judgment.

Generative AI must not independently be used to:

• analyze a confidential manuscript;
• evaluate scientific quality;
• assess methodology;
• determine originality or significance;
• generate substantive peer-review reports;
• determine manuscript strengths or weaknesses; or
• recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection on behalf of the reviewer.

Reviewers may use generative AI solely for limited language polishing of review comments that they have independently written, provided that no confidential manuscript information, unpublished research information, author-identifying information, or other protected information is supplied to the AI system.

If confidentiality cannot be fully protected, generative AI must not be used.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and scholarly integrity of their reviews.

14. Similarity Screening and Ethical Review

JWMAP may use:

• iThenticate;
• Crossref Similarity Check;
• KCI Similarity Check; or
• another appropriate similarity-screening system

where available.

Similarity screening is used as an editorial screening tool.

A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism or misconduct.

Editors evaluate:

• the source of overlap;
• the nature of the overlapping material;
• the amount of overlap;
• whether appropriate citation is provided;
• whether copyrighted material has been reproduced improperly; and
• whether the overlap affects the originality or integrity of the manuscript.

Manuscripts involving credible concerns regarding:

• plagiarism;
• redundant publication;
• duplicate submission;
• fabricated citations;
• data fabrication;
• data falsification;
• image manipulation;
• inappropriate authorship;
• citation manipulation;
• peer-review manipulation;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• ethics approval;
• participant confidentiality; or
• inappropriate generative AI use

may be subject to additional editorial investigation.

15. Citation Integrity During Peer Review

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature when such references are scientifically necessary to improve the manuscript.

However, reviewers must not require citations primarily for the purpose of increasing citations to:

• themselves;
• their colleagues;
• the journal;
• an editor; or
• a particular institution or publication.

Authors are not required to add citations that are irrelevant to their research.

Editors may remove or disregard inappropriate citation requests.

16. Research Integrity Concerns Identified During Review

If significant concerns arise during review, the Editorial Office may request relevant supporting materials, including:

• original data;
• statistical outputs;
• analytical files;
• computer code;
• original images;
• questionnaires or research instruments;
• ethics approval documentation;
• informed-consent documentation;
• authorship contribution information;
• citation-source verification;
• AI-use information; or
• other materials necessary for editorial evaluation.

The existence of a concern or allegation does not by itself establish misconduct.

Editorial action should be based on available evidence and appropriate investigation.

17. Withdrawal, Suspension, or Termination of Review

JWMAP may suspend or terminate the review process when serious concerns arise regarding:

• duplicate submission;
• plagiarism;
• fabricated or falsified data;
• unauthorized authorship changes;
• failure to provide required ethics documentation;
• peer-review manipulation;
• material misrepresentation;
• serious confidentiality violations; or
• other major breaches of journal policy.

Authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript should submit a formal withdrawal request to the Editorial Office.

Withdrawal requests do not prevent the journal from completing an ethics investigation concerning conduct that occurred before withdrawal.

18. Peer Review Process

The general JWMAP peer-review workflow is:

1. Manuscript Submission
2. Administrative and Ethical Screening
3. Desk Review
4. Selection of Independent Expert Reviewers
5. External Double-Blind Peer Review
6. Editorial Evaluation
7. Decision Notification
8. Revision, where required
9. Re-review, where necessary
10. Final Editorial Decision
11. Copyediting and Production after Acceptance
12. Author Proof
13. Final Publication

This workflow may be adapted when additional methodological, ethical, statistical, or specialist review is necessary.

19. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are independent of publication fees and financial considerations.

Payment, exemption, or waiver of the JWMAP Article Processing Charge does not influence:

• reviewer selection;
• peer-review recommendations;
• revision requirements;
• acceptance or rejection;
• publication priority; or
• editorial treatment.

Reviewers should not normally be involved in APC or payment administration.

Payment of an APC does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

20. Final Checklist Before Submission

Before submitting a manuscript for peer review, authors should confirm that:

• the manuscript falls within the current Aims and Scope of JWMAP;
• the manuscript has been prepared using the current official JWMAP template;
• the required Letter paper size has been used;
• the Title Page and Blinded Main Manuscript are prepared separately;
• author-identifying information has been removed from the blinded manuscript;
• all authors have approved the submission;
• the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere;
• ethics approval is reported where required;
• informed consent is addressed where applicable;
• conflicts of interest have been disclosed;
• funding has been disclosed;
• data availability information is provided where applicable;
• generative AI use has been disclosed where applicable;
• all cited references have been verified;
• every cited reference appears in the reference list;
• every reference in the reference list is appropriately cited in the manuscript;
• permission has been obtained for copyrighted third-party material where required; and
• the authors have reviewed the current JWMAP submission, ethics, peer-review, AI, open-access, and APC policies.

21. Submission Declaration

Submission of a manuscript to JWMAP confirms that:

• the manuscript is original;
• it has not been published in substantially the same form elsewhere;
• it is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
• all listed authors satisfy applicable authorship requirements;
• all authors have approved the manuscript;
• all relevant conflicts of interest have been disclosed;
• relevant funding has been disclosed;
• appropriate ethical requirements have been satisfied; and
• the authors accept responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the submitted work.

Authors must disclose manuscripts or publications using substantially overlapping data when such overlap is relevant to editorial assessment.

Where related papers exist, authors should explain the relationship and the distinct contribution of the manuscript submitted to JWMAP.

Redundant publication, duplicate submission, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and inappropriate use of generative AI are not permitted.

22. Relationship with Other JWMAP Policies

This Review Policy should be read together with the current:

• Aims and Scope
• Guide for Authors
• Research and Publication Ethics Policy
• Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy
• Submission, Review, Acceptance, Production, Publication, and Indexing Process
• Publication Fees and Article Processing Charge Policy
• Manuscript Template

Where another JWMAP policy contains more detailed requirements concerning a specific issue, the applicable policies should be read together.

23. Editorial Contact

Questions concerning peer review, reviewer comments, revisions, editorial procedures, research ethics, reviewer confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or individual manuscript cases may be directed to:

Professor Woo-Taeg KWON
Journal of Wellbeing Management and Applied Psychology (JWMAP)
KODISA Foundation
Email: awtkw@eulji.ac.kr