The Journal of Korean Society for Neurotherapy

HOME > For Reviewers

For Reviewers

For Reviewers


The peer review process is essentially a quality control mechanism. It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works, and its objective is to ensure a high quality of published science. However, peer reviewers do not make the decision to accept or reject papers. At most, they recommend a decision. At peer-reviewed journals, decision-making authority rests solely with journal editors or the journal's editorial board. Indeed, it is the journal editor who is considered to be central to the decision making process.

Journal Decision-making Process

Typically, after a paper is submitted to the Korean Society for Neurotherapy journal, a journal editor screens the manuscript and decides whether or not to send it for full peer review. Only after clearing the initial screening is the manuscript sent to one or more peer reviewers. Finally, journal editors or the journal's editorial board consider the peer reviewers' reports and make the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication.

Making Decisions

  • The editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript based on remarks of the reviewers and the editor's own assessment of the manuscript making the final decision to accept or reject the article.

  • The editor's recommendation must be well justified and explained in detail.

  • If the editor's recommendation conflicts with the reviews, or if the reviews conflict with each other, editors must be careful to explain the basis of their recommendation to help avoid an appeal of their decision.

  • In cases where revisions (major or minor) are requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained in the "Comments to Authors" section of the recommendation form.

  • The editor must then promptly convey his/her decision to the author. The author may contact the editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear.

  • The editor should be sure to never disclose the names of reviewers to authors.


An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the submission "as is" with no further changes required by the reviewers. In this case, the Editor will forward the decision to the Chief Executive editor. The Chief Executive Editor will notify the author and editor of the decision and guide the author in the final submission and further production. The submission will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers.

Major Revision

A major revision decision means that the submission should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. If a major revision is recommended, the editor will directly inform the author to make and return the revision to him/her for a second round of reviews. Major revision must be accompanied by a letter from the author indicating the main modifications and how the concerns stated by the reviewers have been addressed in the resubmission.

Minor Revision

A minor revision decision indicates that the article need not go back to the reviewers. The author will be informed by the editor directly, and will send the revision to the original editor together with a short summary about the modifications made and the author's response to reviewer's comments. The editor will evaluate the revision and make a final Accept/Reject decision.


The manuscript is not suitable for publication. The editor may otherwise choose to forward the decision to the Chief Executive Editor who will contact the author with this final decision. In any case, comments should be provided by the editor and returned to the author.

Administrative Reject

The editor rejects the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies.

Second Major Revision

There is no rule against a second major revision as such; however, we strongly advise against it since the authors were already given specific instructions in the past and did not fulfill the requirements. If a major overhaul is required to the current version of the paper before it can be considered for the journal, we suggest closing the current file and recommending rejection. This will give the authors an unlimited amount of time to thoroughly revise their paper and resubmit it as new.

Resubmit as "New"

This may be an alternative decision to asking for a second major revision. If you wish, we can instruct the authors to request the same editor be assigned to their new paper, increasing the chances of an expedited review.