KBR Peer Review Process

2017. 03. 30. Revised
2018. 04. 23. Supplementary Enacted
2019. 05. 20. Revised
2019. 10. 15. Revised
2024. 10. 10. Revised
2025. 07. 00. Revised

I. Review Criteria

1. General Review Criteria

Originality of the paper, value of the research topic, logical consistency of the argument, appropriateness of the research methodology, validity and objectivity of the analysis or evaluation, presentation of data, relevance to prior research, academic contribution of the research findings, discussion of research limitations, and compliance with manuscript preparation guidelines.

2. Category-Specific Review Criteria

(1) "Teaching Cases" are reviewed based on the following criteria:

1. Significance of the case
2. Originality of the case
3. Realism of the case
4. Practicality of the case

(2) "Papers that contribute to business practice and research" are reviewed based on the following criteria:

1. Significance of the research
2. Originality of the research
3. Practical contribution of the research
4. Validity of the methodology
5. Significance of the conclusions

(3) "Papers on Business Education and Research Methodology" are reviewed based on the following criteria:

1. Appropriateness of the topic
2. Originality of the research
3. Practical contribution of the research
4. Validity of the methodology
5. Significance of the conclusions

II. Review Procedures and Methods

1. Only manuscripts submitted in compliance with the submission guidelines through KBR's online manuscript submission system are eligible for review. The Editor-in-Chief and Area Editors may inform authors and decline to proceed with the review if manuscripts do not conform to the submission guidelines or fail to meet the minimum academic standards and logical validity required by KBR.
2. The Editor-in-Chief proceeds with the review only for submitted manuscripts with a KCI (Korea Citation Index) similarity check result showing a similarity rate within 10%.
3. Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief immediately notifies the author of the date of receipt in writing and simultaneously selects an editorial board member to oversee the review of the manuscript. The designated editorial board member then appoints two reviewers. The editorial board member may also directly oversee the review. Since the initial review deadline is 28 days, the selection of reviewers should be completed within one week in principle.
4. If an editorial board member submits a manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief shall assign another editorial board member in the relevant field to appoint reviewers.
5. Submitted manuscripts undergo blind review by two reviewers (a review method in which the authors' names are kept confidential from the reviewers, and the reviewers' names are kept confidential from the authors).
6. After the initial review is completed, the Editor-in-Chief notifies the author of the results and may request revisions based on the review outcome. Revised manuscripts resubmitted by the author are reviewed again by the initial reviewers.
7. The Editorial Board publishes only manuscripts that have passed through the above process. Administrative processing related to manuscript review is handled by the editorial secretary.
8. Manuscripts invited as special contributions also undergo the same review process to determine publication eligibility.

III. Review Period

1. Reviewer Selection and Manuscript Distribution

Reviewers commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief must complete the review within three months from the date of commission, including the initial review (within 28 days) and the re-review (within 14 days). If a selected reviewer is unable to conduct the review due to unavoidable circumstances, the reviewer must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief. If the review is delayed, two written reminders will be sent, and if there is no response within two weeks after the reminders, the review will be withdrawn and a replacement reviewer will be selected.

2. Reviewer Re-selection and Review Period

If a replacement reviewer is selected, the review period shall be two-thirds of the standard period, and the results must be reported in writing to the Editor-in-Chief using the prescribed form of the Editorial Board.

IV. Decisions

1. Initial review results are prepared using a separate review opinion form and are classified into four categories: Accept without Revision, Accept with Minor Revision, Revise and Resubmit, and Reject. Re-review results are classified into three categories: Accept without Revision, Accept with Minor Revision, and Reject, and the re-review result serves as the final decision.

2. Manuscripts judged as "Accept without Revision" are published without any modifications.

3. "Accept with Minor Revision" applies when minor textual corrections are needed or when content revisions are minimal, making publication possible after minor modifications. The Editorial Board communicates the reviewer's revision comments to the author, and the author must actively incorporate them into the revised manuscript. The author must submit the revised manuscript and a summary of revisions by the specified deadline. The Editor-in-Chief verifies the revisions.

4. "Revise and Resubmit" applies when substantial revisions are required or when the content of the manuscript needs significant supplementation. The author must revise the manuscript reflecting the reviewer's comments and undergo re-review. The re-review is conducted by the initial reviewers.

5. "Reject" applies when the manuscript lacks originality, does not align with the journal's scope, is not logically sound, or is deemed of insufficient quality for publication. Reviewers must provide specific reasons for rejection, and authors are notified of the rejection with a detailed explanation.

6. The Editorial Board may issue a "Reject" decision through a preliminary suitability assessment. The preliminary suitability assessment is a process in which an editorial board member (or the Editor-in-Chief) reviews a manuscript before selecting formal reviewers and determines a "Reject" decision if the manuscript does not fit the journal's scope or is significantly unsuitable or inappropriate for proceeding with a formal review.

7. Handling Disagreements Between Reviewers

When the review results of two reviewers differ, the final decision is made according to the following principles:

When two reviewers render decisions of "Accept without Revision" or "Accept with Minor Revision" and "Reject" respectively, the editorial board member must assign a new re-reviewer to replace the reviewer who rendered the "Reject" decision. Additionally, when the opinions of the two reviewers significantly diverge or when there are concerns about the fairness of a reviewer's evaluation, the editorial board member (or the Editor-in-Chief) may render the final review decision one level lower to maintain the quality of published papers.

8. Appeals

Authors may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Board once against the final decision, and must present substantial arguments or empirical evidence. Appeals are reviewed through an Editorial Board meeting, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. Authors may not file a further appeal against the Editorial Board's final decision on the appeal.

9. Limitation on the Number of Reviews

The total number of reviews is limited to two rounds, including the initial review. In the second round, the decision is rendered as one of three categories: "Accept without Revision," "Accept with Minor Revision," or "Reject."

10. The content of reviews shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the author.

11. The evaluation is conducted across six detailed criteria (including topic relevance, differentiation from prior research, etc.).

V. Manuscript Revision and Publication

1. When revisions are required, authors are given a maximum of two months for manuscript revision. In special circumstances, this period may be extended at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. The re-review period for revised manuscripts is, in principle, within two weeks. If the author fails to submit the revised manuscript by the specified date, the submission is considered withdrawn, and the author must restart the entire review process from the beginning if they wish to proceed.
2. For manuscripts accepted for publication, the author must revise the manuscript in accordance with the editorial policies and manuscript preparation guidelines recommended by the Editorial Board and submit it to the Editorial Board within 7 days of the revision request.
3. For individual manuscripts accepted for publication, the date of acceptance is specified at the time of journal publication to enhance the specificity and rigor of the review process.
4. Even if an individual (or the same first author in collaborative research) submits two or more manuscripts and all pass the review process, the author must select only one manuscript for publication. The remaining manuscripts may be published in the subsequent issue.