Editor's & Reviewer's Guide
The Journal of Electrochemical Science and Technology is the official journal of the Korean Electrochemical Society. It serves the electrochemistry profession and society by publishing technical papers containing the results of scientific and engineering research. The publication of such research will facilitate the development of the electrochemical society and build a systematic and esteemed network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. All articles that have been peer reviewed are a manifestation of scientific method applied to the studies. Therefore, it is paramount that the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the publishing be defined. The editors of the journal, therefore, have outlined certain ethical guidelines for all engaged in the publication of electrochemical research, particularly, the editors, authors, and reviewers of the manuscripts submitted to the journal. By delineating these guidelines we do not propose that there exists a crisis with regard to ethical behavior in the field of research, but rather the belief that the adherence to high ethical standards is extremely crucial to the whole scientific enterprise, and thus, these standards require to be defined for the reference of all concerned.
1. Responsibilities of Journal Editors
1) The editor shall not exercise any bias when considering the manuscripts submitted for publication. Each paper shall be assessed on the basis of its individuality, thus not regarding the author's gender, age, institutional affiliation, or any personal acquaintance that the editor may have with the authors.
2) The editor shall be sole responsible for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript submitted to the journal for publication. Any advice that the editor may require with regard to a manuscript shall be received from specialists chosen solely for their expertise and fair judgment.
3) The editor shall treat all contents of the manuscript submitted for publication as strictly confidential material and not disclose any information with regard to the manuscript to anyone but the author and designated reviewers until after the process of assessment is completed.
4) The editor shall honor the author's individuality and intellectual independence.
2. Responsibilities of Reviewers of Manuscripts
1) The reviewer is expected to exercise objectivity during the review process, when judging the quality of a research paper, evaluating the experiments and the theories supporting them, the inferences of the studies, and the corroborated by appropriate scientific and literary standards. The journal shall not accept any review that reflects personal scientific positions or hypotheses, which are not verifiable in their entirety. The reviewer is required to objectively assess the manuscript irrespective of whether the reviewer's own research is linked to the researcher's paper or whether the reviewer is in any way affiliated to the researcher.
2) The journal expects the reviewer to respect the author's individual identity and intellectual distinction. The reviewer's report shall cover his/her judgment on the manuscript, pointing out any inadequate or questionable matter with a detailed explanation. The reviewer's opinion should be well formatted, and any offensive comments made to the author will not be tolerated. The extraction of any information or supplementary materials from the author with a view to serve the best interest of the reviewer is strictly prohibited.
3) Any manuscript submitted to the journal shall be treated as confidential material by the reviewer. No interactions with anyone other than the researcher, except in extraordinary circumstances that require the reviewer to seek specific advice, and in such situation, the reviewer will be required to disclose the identities of those consulted to the editor. Prior to publication, the contents of a manuscript cannot be referenced without the agreement of the author.
4) The reviewer should confirm that the citations of the work referred in the paper are accurate. If the reviewer discovers that the study described in the manuscript is similar to previously published work, the reviewer should report the similarity between the previous work and the manuscript to the editor.
5) The reviewer is required to be punctual in submitting the assessment of the manuscript. If an appointed reviewer is of the opinion that he/she does not possess adequate qualifications to assess the assigned manuscript, he/she should immediately inform the editor.