Sign Languages and Linguistics Convergence Research

1. Purpose

These regulations are established to outline the procedures and standards for the peer review of manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Sign Language and Language Convergence Studies, published by the Language Convergence Research Institute.

2. Scope of Review

1. All submitted manuscripts, excluding special feature and commissioned articles, are subject to peer review.

2. Special feature and commissioned articles, which are requested by the Institute, are generally exempt from review. However, if the need for review is raised, the editorial board may decide to conduct a review following the standard review procedures.

3. Review Authority

1. The editorial board of The Journal of Sign Language and Language Convergence Studies oversees all peer review processes.

2. Each manuscript is reviewed by three referees appointed by the editorial board. Reviewers must be experts in fields relevant to the manuscript.

3. In the case of special manuscripts directly related to the Institute’s editorial direction, the editorial board may conduct the review and determine whether the manuscript should be published.

4. Review Criteria

1. All manuscripts must undergo a formal peer review process.

2. Manuscripts must be original and unpublished elsewhere.

3. Submissions must adhere to the Institute’s submission guidelines. The editorial board may request revisions or postpone publication for manuscripts that do not comply.

4. The editorial board shall proactively verify plagiarism using systems such as the KCI Similarity Check service. Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, or those failing to comply with research ethics regulations—such as lacking IRB approval for human-subject research or violating guidelines for specially related authors—may be excluded from review or rejected by the editorial board.

5. Review Process

1. The editorial board appoints two experts as reviewers for each submitted manuscript. To ensure fairness, reviewers affiliated with the same institution (e.g., the same university) as the submitting author are strictly excluded from the reviewer selection and assignment process (Institutional Exclusion Rule). Furthermore, if a reviewer recognizes a potential financial or personal Conflict of Interest (COI) regarding the author or the research content, they must immediately recuse themselves from the review. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure a fair review process.

2. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria, assign scores for each item, and provide a final recommendation along with written comments. The total score determines the decision as follows:

   • Accept: 90 points or above

   • Accept with Revisions: 75–89 points

   • Revise and Resubmit: 60–74 points

   • Reject: Below 60 points

   Evaluation Criteria:
   ① Originality of topic and content
   ② Appropriateness of structure and methodology
   ③ Logical coherence and completeness of the argument
   ④ Use of existing literature and academic rigor
   ⑤ Scholarly contribution of research results
   ⑥ Accuracy of references
   ⑦ Relevance and quality of the abstract

3. Based on the reviewers' evaluations, the editorial board makes a decision according to the following guidelines:
   ① Final decisions follow the average score: Accept (90+), Accept with Revisions (75–89), Revise and Resubmit (60–74), Reject (under 60).
   ② For “Accept,” the manuscript is published as submitted.
   ③ For “Accept with Revisions,” the author is informed of the required changes, and final publication is contingent on satisfactory revision.
   ④ For “Revise and Resubmit,” the author may submit a revised version in the next issue’s submission period. Re-review is conducted, preferably by the same reviewers. If objections arise, the editorial board may appoint new reviewers.
   ⑤ For “Reject,” the author is notified along with the reasons for rejection, and the paper will not be published.

4. Authors of manuscripts rated “Revise and Resubmit” or “Reject” may file an objection:
   ① Objections must be submitted in writing or by email within three days of notification. The objection must be based on scholarly reasoning.
   ② Objections are not permitted for manuscripts unanimously rated “Reject” by all three reviewers.
   ③ The editorial board will forward the objection to the reviewers for reconsideration.
   ④ Reviewers must respond within five days.
   ⑤ No further objections will be accepted after the re-review.
   ⑥ Manuscripts that pass re-review will be published in the next issue without additional review, following revision.

6. Notification of Acceptance

The editorial board will notify the author of the final decision within one week after the review process is complete.

7. Additional Provisions

1. The author’s identity will remain anonymous during the review process.

2. All information related to the review process will remain confidential. In particular, reviewers must not input the entirety or any part of an unpublished manuscript under review into generative AI programs, such as ChatGPT, for the purposes of summarization, translation, or evaluation. Violating this rule is considered a severe breach of confidentiality and research ethics.

3. The format for the review report will be separately specified.

Supplementary Provisions

1. These regulations are effective as of January 1, 2024.

2. These revised regulations are effective as of June 5, 2026.