• Home
  • E-submission
  • Sitemap
  • Contact us
J. Conserv. Sci Search

CLOSE


Instructions for reviewers

  • HOME
  • FOR CONTRIBUTORS
  • Instructions for reviewers

This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of the journal. All of the journal's contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

Double Blind Peer Review
The Journal of Conservation Science (JCS) adopts double blind review, which means that the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa.

Role of Reviewers
Peer reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscript to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendation.
If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14 days of review period, please decline to review or ask for extension of the review period. If there is no review comment within the 7 days from acceptance to review, the reviewer will be given a notice.

Writing Review Comments
After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download PDF files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format , but just concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

Comment to authors: Summarize the whole content of manuscript in one sentence. Please make a specific comment according to the order of each section of the manuscript. Page mark is good to trace the review comment. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance should not be stated at the comment to authors. Consider if the peer review opinion may increase the quality of manuscript or further research by author.

Comment to editor: Both the strength and shortness of the manuscript are recommended to be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here including special opinion to editor.

Ethical Guideline for Reviewers
1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest as follows:

• Reviewer is a competitor.
• Reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s).
• Reviewer may profit financially from the work.

In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.
A history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not prohibit the review.
3. Reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.

Post-review Work by the Editorial Office
Review opinions and decisions may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying the reviewer. If it is required, please contact the editorial office. The reviewers may be listed in the editorial for appreciation.



ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
FOR READERS
Editorial Office
Department of Heritage Conservation & Restoration, Graduate School of Cultural Heritage, Korea National University of Cultural Heritage
367, Baekjemun-ro, Gyuam-myeon, Buyeo-gun, Chungcheongnam-do 33115, Korea
Tel: +82-41-830-7365        E-mail: journal.conservation@gmail.com                

Copyright © 2019 by The Korean Society of Conservation Science for Cultural Heritage. All rights reserved.

Developed in M2community

Close layer
prev next