|
|
To ensure
that ETRI Journal publishes only the highest quality papers and
that all material submitted to the journal is judged in an objective
and fair manner, all papers considered for publication undergo a
thorough peer review. |
 |
Recommendations of reviewers form the basis
for the Editorial Committee's decision whether to publish the paper. |
|
The Editorial Committee of ETRI Journal selects three reviewers
for their knowledge and experience of the paper's topic. |
|
Reviews should be returned within the requested or
agreed upon time frame, usually 4 weeks for regular papers and 2 weeks
for Letters. |
|
The Review system is double-blind: the reviewers' identities
are not disclosed to the authors, nor are the authors' identities
disclosed to the reviewers. |
|
Reviewers use the ETRI Journal standard form for their
evaluation and recommendations |
| Recommendations
The reviewer's recommendation may be |
|
Publish as is |
|
Publish upon minor revisions |
|
Resubmit after major revisions: reevaluation may be
requested of the original and/or additional reviewers |
|
Reject |
| Criteria and Evaluation for the Merit of a Paper
|
|
The significance of the work for the journal's
audience |
|
The contribution the paper will make to the field |
|
The quality of the paper: original, high scientific
quality, well organized and clearly written, sufficient support for assertions and conclusion, accurate, appropriate title,
abstract includes important points of the paper, satisfactory English, pertinent references, clear
tables and figures |
|
Reviewers' support for their opinions |
|
Overall recommendation on the paper |
|
Optional confidential comments to the Editorial Committee |
| Submission of Review Results
We encourage our reviewers to submit their review reports on our web site.
For online submission of review results, log onto the system by entering your
ID and password on the left panel or use the direct link from the review request e-mail.
For reviewers who prefer to submit their reports by e-mail, fax, or postal service,
our contact information is as follows:
|
|
ETRI Journal Editorial Office (2101)
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
Yuseong P.O. Box 106
Daejeon 305-700
Republic of Korea
Fax: +82-42-860-6737
|
|
|
A timely return of the reviewers' recommendations
is crucial to the publishing process. Late return of reviews is the main element that delays publication. |
|
The material you review is confidential; you must not reveal it to anyone until after it has been published. |
|
We hope that you will strive to bring to each review
your considered expertise, to judge each paper with an open mind, and to find the right point between judging too permissively
and too strictly. |
|
ETRI Journal encourages all its reviewers
and authors to read the article: Alan Jay Smith, "The
Task of the Referee," IEEE Computer, vol. 23, no. 4, April
1990, pp. 65-73. Here is a quote from that article on criteria for
evaluating a research paper:
|
|
What is the purpose of the paper?
What is the problem? Is it clearly stated? Does
the author make the important issues clear? Does the author tell
you early in the paper what he or she has accomplished?...
|
|
Is the paper appropriate?
Does this paper have anything to do with [the field]?
If so, is the research appropriate for this forum?...
|
|
Is the goal significant?
For that matter, is the problem real? … Is the
problem, goal, or intended result new? Has the design been built
before? Has the problem been solved before? Is this a trivial variation
on or extension of previous results? Is the author aware of related
and previous work, both recent and old? Does he or she cite that
work and give specific distinctions between it and the current work?
If the paper describes an implementation, are there any new ideas?
|
|
Is the method of approach valid?
Is there something about the approach that invalidates
the results? Can you tell what the method is, or do you have to
ferret it out from mathematical formulas?
What are the assumptions? … If this is a new idea, does the author
present enough discussion or analysis?...
|
|
Is the actual execution of the research correct?
Is the mathematics correct? Are the proofs convincing?
Are the statistics correct? Is the simulation methodology described
in sufficient detail to convince you that the results are valid?
...
|
|
Are the correct conclusions drawn from the results?
What are the applications or implications of the
results? Does the author adequately discuss why he or she obtained
these results?
|
|
Is the presentation satisfactory?
Is the paper written well enough for you to evaluate
the technical content? Does the abstract describe the paper? Does
the introduction adequately explain the problem and the research
framework? Are the remaining sections clear, and do they follow
in a logical order? Is there too much or too little detail? Are
the grammar and syntax correct? Are the figures and tables well
labeled, legible, and meaningful? Are there too many or too few
tables and figures? Are explanations poor or even nonsensical? ...
The paper should be long enough to present the necessary material
and no longer....
|
|
What did you learn?
What did you, or what should the reader, learn
from the paper? If you didn't learn anything, or if the intended
reader won't learn anything, the paper is not publishable.
|
|
 |
