Regulation of Journal
This regulation aims to determine matters related to the submission and review of the Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Journal")
2-1. Author Qualification
In principle, all authors shall be regular or associate members of the Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK). However, associate members are limited to co-authors.
2-2. Publication Fees
The author shall pay a publishing fee of 10,000 KRW and a reviewing fee of 90,000 KRW per paper. The reviewing fee shall be paid when the paper is submitted, and the publication fee shall be paid when the paper is published. The paper shall be between 8 and 12 pages, and the author must pay an additional 50,000 KRW per 2 pages if the number of pages exceeds 8. (Excess of 1 page is counted as 2 pages, and 3 pages as 4 pages.)
3. Main and Corresponding Authors
If a co-author is included, the person who is entered in the first position shall be the main author and the person whose name is written in the bottom-left of the first page with the email address shall be the "corresponding author."
4. Restrictions on the Number of Publishing
Papers of the same title with different subtitles are not acceptable.
5. Reception of Papers
① Papers shall be accepted occasionally, and the date of receipt shall be the date of receipt by the Editorial Committee.
② The author shall prepare the paper in accordance with the ‘Preparation Guidelines of the Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea’ and submit it through the Journal website. The details of the submission are as follows:
1. The original copy shall be submitted as a PDF file.
2. The application shall be submitted using the template provided at the time of Internet application.
6-1. Composition and Preparation of Papers
The authors shall comply with the ‘Preparation Guidelines of the Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea’ for composition and preparation of their paper.
6-2. Configuration and Role of the Editorial Committee
The Editorial Committee that is composed of experts in relevant major fields, manages this regulation, preparation guidelines, and matters associated with research ethics, and deals with all affairs regarding publication and review of collected papers.
7. Reviewer Commission and Review Deadline
① The commissioned paper review processes are as follows (Double-blind review) :
1. The paper review shall be conducted by three persons in the related major field upon review commission.
2. The author’s personal information shall not be disclosed to the commissioned reviewers.
3. Reviewers shall be commissioned privately and may disclose review comments and other materials in the journal to improve the quality of the paper and promote the review.
② The review deadline and its related matters are as follows :
1. The reviewer shall notify the Editorial Committee regarding the results of the review within 14 days from the start date of the review request (provided that the reviewer replies to the Editorial Committee within seven days after receiving the request from the Editorial Committee; otherwise, the reviewer shall immediately be replaced by a reserve reviewer).
2. If the reviewer does not notify the results of the review within the review period without any special reason, the Chief Editor may select another reviewer. The reserve reviewer shall notify the Editorial Committee regarding the results of the review within seven days after the acceptance of the review.
3. When the reviewers make a "Revise and Resubmit" or "Reject" decision, they shall provide sufficient explanation for their decision.
4. In the case of Revise and Resubmit, the reviewer shall notify the Editorial Committee regarding the results of the review within 14 days after receiving the request for re-review, and if the period elapses, the re-reviewed paper shall be treated as publishable. However, if the notice from the reviewer is delayed, then the AIK can wait for the results of the re-review; however, the delay must not exceed seven days.
5. If a reviewer violates the paper review due date more than three times, the reviewer may be excluded from the Standing Review Committee.
6. In principle, the Editorial Committee shall pay the review fees to the reviewers.
8. Review of Papers
① The papers shall be reviewed and evaluated for originality, utility, completeness, reliability, etc. in terms of the content level and the contribution of research results.
② The papers shall be assessed as one of the following four levels: Accept, Accept with Revision, Revise and Resubmit, and Reject. However, Revise and Resubmit is only allowed twice.
1. Accepted refers to publication without modification.
2. Accept with Revision refers to publication after reflecting the comments of the reviewers.
3. Revise and Resubmit refers to re-review after reflecting the comments of the reviewers.
4. Reject means that the paper cannot be published.
9. Acceptance and Rejection of Papers
① Papers are evaluated as accepted or rejected for publication according to the following criteria:
1. Accept (including Accept with Revision) requires an acceptance from two among the three reviewers. However, when two reviewers issue an Accept and one reviewer issues a Reject, the acceptance of the paper and the comments of the two reviewers who issued the Accept shall be notified to the reviewer who issued the Reject.
2. A paper that is evaluated as Reject by at least two reviewers shall not be published (selected).
3. If the author disagrees with the judgment, he or she may raise an objection in writing to the Editorial Committee, and the committee shall form a Special Appeal Committee based on the objection and notify the author of the review opinion within 30 days. The details thereof shall adhere to the “Bylaws on The Appeal of The Paper.”
4. The paper evaluated as Reject may be resubmitted, if revised, three months after the date of the judgment notification.
5. In the case of Accept with Revision, the reviewers may request for a confirmation.
② Paper publication shall be decided based on the following criteria:
1. The publication of a paper is decided by the Editorial Committee.
2. The following papers shall not be published:
A. Paper that violates or does not relate to the purpose of the AIK.
B. Paper that has already been published and is therefore recognized to have lost its significance. However, when an already published paper (e.g., through academic conference) contains newly developed content and topics, it can be published.
C. Paper that does not comply with the Preparation Guidelines.
3. The publication date of the paper shall be determined by the Editorial Committee.
4. Papers are prioritized for publication based on acceptance in the review but shall be published in the order of receipt in principle.
10. Revision of Paper
① The paper revision and submission of response shall comply with the following:
1. Revised papers shall be submitted as a PDF file, and the response using the template provided on the Journal website.
2. The author shall submit the revised paper and response within six months after being notified of the review results. When this period elapses, the author shall specify the reason for the delay and submit a response. In addition, if a revised paper is not submitted for one year after receiving notification of the review results, the Editorial Committee can reject the paper.
② The author is responsible for the editing and proofreading of the papers to be published. However, the Editorial Committee may cooperate under the responsibility of the author.
① The discussion shall be submitted within six months after the publication of the designated paper. The discussion is included in the Journal with the response of the author. No additional fees will be incurred.
② The selection and management of the discussion shall be decided by the Editorial Committee.
③ The language and notation of the discussion, as well as the units and symbols, figures and pictures, tables, notes, works cited, etc. shall be in accordance with the Preparation Guidelines. However, the discussion contents and response shall not exceed two pages each. The title of the discussion, i.e., “Discussion on 「Title of the Paper to be Discussed) 」” shall be entered in the first line, and the “paper title, author name, the Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, Vol. ○○, No. ○○, year, month published” in the parenthesis on the next line.
12. Date of Publication
The Journal shall be published on the 30th of each month.
13. Copyright and License
① By agreeing to the Copyright Transfer Agreement when submitting the paper through the Journal website, the copyright of the paper to be published shall belong to the AIK. The author shall not dispute the AIK’s management of papers already published in previous journals.
② The author can maintain rights such as revisions, improvement, applications, derivative research, and verbal presentations for his/her own paper (pre-publication), and can publish the article on his/her personal websites and blogs, and repositories in his/her institution only for non-profit purposes.
Matters not mentioned in this Regulation shall be in accordance with the precedent.
This Regulation shall be in effect on the date approved by the Board of Directors.
GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT REVIEW
Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea (JAIK) adopts double blind review, which means that the reviewers and authors cannot identify each others’ information.
The peer reviewers objectively review the manuscript to determine whether it has an appropriate level of quality for each major field, considering the manuscripts’ originality, usefulness, completeness, reliability, etc.
The manuscript has not been published elsewhere, and should be original. Reviewer reviews whether it satisfies one or more of the followings :
- Are the topic, contents, and methods original?
- Is the manuscript raising an important problem to academic community and society?
- Does the manuscript make a great contribution to the explanation of current phenomenon?
- Does the manuscript represent a technical review and experience that has a lot of creativity?
- Does the manuscript synthetically organize for a timely topic and suggest new opinions?
The contents of manuscript have academic and practical values. Reviewer reviews whether they satisfy one or more of the followings:
- Are the topic and contents appropriate in a timely manner?
- Are there a lot of application, utility, and possibility with reference to research and technological performance?
- Is it worth to be used in practice?
- Does it systemize the researches on major field and provide new directions for future?
The manuscript is presented both exactly and concisely according to the Manuscript Editing Guidelines.Reviews refer to the followings:
- Is the general presentation of sentence proper?
- Are the tables and figures clear and appropriate?
- Are the cited literatures and references properly presented?
The contents of manuscript do not contains any errors and are objectively reliable. Reviews refer to the followings:
- Is the outline of the paper appropriate?
- Are the purpose and conclusion of paper clear?
- Does it have an appropriate relationship with prior research and
- Have all important literatures been cited and properly evaluated?
- Is an appropriate conclusion induced through the comparison and evaluation with existing technology and research accomplishment?