MY MENU

심사규정



  • Korean
  • English

Journal of Korean Dental Science 심사규정

Enactment: September 10, 2009
First amendment: March 19, 2021
Second amendment: December 8, 2023
Article 1 (Purpose)

This regulation establishes fair review criteria by specifying the review procedures for the manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal of Korean Dental Science of the Korean Academy of Dental Science (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”).

Article 2 (Subjects of Review)
  • 1. Title: Conciseness and logical reflection of the manuscript’s content
  • 2. Abstract: Purpose of the manuscript’s content, appropriateness of the topic, and length (within 250 words in English)
  • 3. Introduction and Theoretical Background: Research background and purpose, clarity of research observations, the extent of the literature review and the association of cited studies with the main text, theoretical background, and the connection between the research problem(s) and purpose
  • 4. Materials and Methods: Research materials and methods, suitability of problem-solving, reliability of research methods, appropriateness of data analysis methods
  • 5. Results and Discussion: Clarity of the results of the research analysis, sufficiency of data reporting, accuracy of data, logic of the interpretation of results, connection between the research problem(s) and conclusion, contribution and potential utilization of the research results
  • 6. References: Accuracy, up-to-dateness, appropriateness, suitability of formatting

Article 3 (Review Process)
  • 1. The submitted manuscript is reviewed by three or more reviewers who are appointed by the editorial board.
  • 2. Three or more reviewers who are experts in the relevant field are appointed by the editorial board. They conduct reviews in accordance with Article 3 of this regulation and submit the review reports to the editorial board.
  • 3. The editorial board may request a person appointed as a reviewer to submit a list of research achievements for the past 3 years if necessary to ensure an impartial appointment of reviewers.
  • 4. The review report shall contain the title of the submitted manuscript, an overview of the review, suitability according to the review regulations, and general comments.

Article 4 (Review Method)
  • 1. The authors of the manuscript to be reviewed shall be anonymized.
  • 2. Reviewers cannot review their own manuscripts.
  • 3. A person who has the same affiliation as a contributor to the manuscript cannot be appointed as a reviewer.
  • 4. Reviewers determine the review result as one of the following and report it to the editorial board.
    • ① Publication without revisions
    • ② Publication with revisions
    • ③ Re-review after revisions
    • ④ Reject
  • 5. If the review results fall under Subparagraphs 2, 3, or 4 of Paragraph 4, reviewers shall explain the specific reasons in the review report.
  • 6. If reviewers report different results, the majority opinion will be applied.
  • 7. If one or more reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript will be rejected.
  • 8. The editorial board determines whether to publish each submitted manuscript based on the reviewers’ opinions. The quorum of the editorial board shall be the majority of the members in attendance, and the quorum for determining whether to publish submitted manuscripts shall be a majority of members present.
  • 9. A manuscript may be determined as having a high level of similarity by the reviewer’s judgment based on the similarity report.

Article 5 (Notification of Review Results and Confidentiality)
  • 1. The Editor-in-Chief must individually notify the authors of each submitted manuscript regarding the review results.
  • 2. The contributor who is requested to revise the manuscript must resubmit the manuscript with revisions within 14 days from the date of notification.
  • 3. A contributor who objects to the revision request can raise an objection within 14 days from the date of notification. The editorial board judges the adequacy of the objection and determines whether to publish the manuscript or not.
  • 4. Reviewers of each submitted manuscript must keep confidentiality in all matters related to review.

Article 6 (Plagiarism)

If there is a dispute regarding plagiarism of the submitted manuscript, the “Journal of Korean Dental Science Ethics Regulations” shall be followed.


Article 7 (Amendment)

This regulation can be amended through a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Society.


Supplementary Provisions

This regulation will take effect on December 8, 2023.



  • Korean
  • English
2009.09.10

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Regulation is to establish a fair review standard by establishing proper screening procedures for papers submitted for publication in the Journal of Korean Dental Science published by the Korean Academy of Dental Science

Article 2 (Target of Review)
  • 1. Title: Conciseness and logical reflection of paper content
  • 2. Abstract: Purpose of paper content, appropriateness of the subject, length (within 250 words in English)
  • 3. Introduction/Theoretical Background: Research background and purpose, clarity of research observations, the number of literature reviews and their association with the text, the connection between the theoretical background and the research problem and purpose
  • 4. Materials and Methods: Research materials and methods, suitability of problem solving, reliability of research methods, appropriateness of research data analysis techniques
  • 5. Results and Discussion: Clarity of the results of research analysis, sufficiency of data reporting, accuracy of data, logic of interpretation of results, connection between research problems and conclusions, contribution and utility of research results
  • 6. References: Accuracy, up-to-date it is, appropriateness, suitability of form

Article 3 Review Process
  • 1. In principle the submitted manuscripts are, reviewed by three peers per work by judges commissioned through the editorial committee.
  • 2. The review is conducted by three experts in the relevant field appointed by the Editorial Committee, based on Article 3 of this regulation, and the results are prepared as a review result report and submitted to the Editorial Committee.
  • 3. The Editorial Committee may request a person appointed as a reviewer to submit a list of research achievements for the last 3 years if necessary for the appointment of an impartial reviewer.
  • 4. The judges shall write the title of the submitted paper, the review outline, the suitability when compared with the review criteria, and the general review in the result report, and mark with a seal or sign it.

Article 4 Review Method
  • 1. Papers to be reviewed without the author's name.
  • 2. Judges cannot review their own paper.
  • 3. The judges evaluate the results as one of the following and report them to the editorial board.
    • ① Publication without modification
    • ② Publication after revision
    • ③ Re-examination after revision
    • ④ Rejected for Publishing
  • 4. If the results of the review fall under Chapter 3, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4, the judges shall disclose the specific evaluation summary in the review opinion.
  • 5. If the results of the judges are different, the majority opinions will be applied.
  • 6. If more than one of the judges decides that publication has failed to meet the standard, then it will be rejected.
  • 7. The editorial committee decides whether to publish each submitted manuscript (paper) based on the opinion of judges. The quorum of the editorial committee is based on the attendance of a majority of the members, and the quorum for determining whether to publish a submitted paper will be based on the majority of those attendance.

Article 5 Result Notification and Confidentiality
  • 1. The editor-in-chief must notify the authors of each submitted paper individually of the results of the review.
  • 2. The contributor of the manuscript (paper) receiving the revision instructions must re-submit the paper after revising and supplementing it within 7 days from the date of notification of the result.
  • 3. Contributors who object to the revised order may file an objection plea within 7 days from the date of result notifications. In such a case, the editorial committee determines the validity of the objection and whether or not to publish it.
  • 4. The reviewers of each submitted manuscript (paper) must keep confidentiality in all matters related to the paper review.

Article 6 Plagiarism

If there is a plagiarism dispute on published paper, the Korean Academy of Dental Science Ethics Regulations shall be followed.


Article 7 (Amendments)

This regulation can be amended through the resolution of the board of the Korean Academy of Dental Science.


Supplementary Provisions

This regulation will take effect from September 10, 2009.