This aims to contribute to the qualitative improvement of the Journal of the Korean Clinical Laboratory Science by establishing matters related to the review of papers submitted.

1. 1) The chairperson of the review committee can also hold the position of the journal’s editor-in-chief.
2. 2) The reviewers a re c omposed of experts i n the relevant field, including the editorial board members.
   1. (1) The editor-in-chief, when necessary, can delegate the acceptance of submitted papers and the selection of reviewers
   2. (2) If the editorial committee determines that the content of a submitted paper is unique or requires specialized review, they can appoint a special review committee. In unavoidable circumstances, they might also request a review from the review or editorial board.
   3. (3) The editorial committee, as a principle, does not appoint reviewers from the same institution as that of the author of the submitted paper. Exceptions can be made in unavoidable circumstances.
   4. (4) When an executive (e.g., editorial board member) submits a paper, the review by the editorial board is typically excluded, and the review is requested from a reviewer without conflicts of interest.
   5. (5) Reviewers should communicate their acceptance or refusal of the review request within 3 days of receiving it.
   6. (6) If the reviewer does not submit their review within 14 days, the request can be canceled.
   7. (7) If a reviewer refuses the review request more than twice without a specific reason or if the paper review is insincere, the reviewer can be dismissed.

Submitted papers are evaluated by both the editorial and review committees. The editorial committee pre-assesses the content and quality of submitted papers before sending them for review. If the content of a paper does not align with the journal’s objectives and scope or is not written according to the submission guidelines, it can be rejected without review.

1. 1) The time taken for review, including the first review (within 14 days) and the re-review (within 10 days), should ideally be within 8 weeks.
2. 2) Considering the research area of the submitted paper, the editor-in-chief designates three reviewers for each paper. The criteria for selecting reviewers are based on “Article 2 (Composition of Reviewers).”
3. 3) The review process uses a double-blind system. The editorial committee ensures that the reviewers are provided with guidelines without revealing the personal information of the authors. The names of the reviewers are not disclosed, and the content of the review is not shared with anyone other than the author.

Reviewers assess the research based on its originality, the logical progression of its content, the validity of the analysis method, the appropriateness of the paper format, and the adequacy of research ethics, according to the evaluation form (mentioned in Article 4).

Main Items for Review Evaluation
However, for papers written at the request of the society, some of the review process can be omitted based on the editorial committee’s opinion. The evaluation form is like Table 1 and Table 2, and the results of the paper review are specified as the total score for each item. For papers written at the society’s request, parts of the review process can be omitted based on the editorial committee’s opinion.

1. 1) The classification of the paper review results, necessary actions, and specified judgments are as follows:
   1. (1) Suitable for Publication: Judged as publishable without revisions.
   2. (2) Publish a fter R evision: A fter the a uthor ma kes revisions based on the reviewer’s opinions, the editorial member verifies and decides on its acceptance.
   3. (3) Re-evalua te a fter R evision: A fter t he a uthor makes revisions based on the reviewer’s opinions, the paper is re-reviewed by the reviewer to decide on its acceptance. A re-review is allowed only up to two times.
   4. (4) Not Suitable for Publication: If there’s research misconduct, lack of research result reliability or

      Table 1. Write the review evaluation from the perspectives listed in Table 1 below.

      Table 1. Write the review evaluation from the perspectives listed in Table 1 below.

      	Outstanding (5)	Excellent (4)	Average (3)	Insufficient (2)	Lacking (1)
      1. Theoretical contribution (main points of academic relevance and review results)
      2. Practical implications
      3. Originality of the content
      4. Theoretical and experimental verification and validity
      5. Appropriateness of research motivation and background
      6. Description and logic of the objective
      7. Appropriateness of research method
      8. Validity of the title in both Korean and English
      9. Validity of the title and summary (including abstract)
      10. Citation rate of recent references
      11. Appropriateness of the writing style in accordance with paper submission guidelines.
      Total Score / 50
      ※ A Accept (Suitable for Publication): 46∼50 / Minor (Publish after Revision): 41∼45 / Major (Re-evaluate after Revision): 31∼40 / Reject (Not Suitable for Publication): 30 and below.

      Table 2. The items to be checked are as follows.

      Table 2. The items to be checked are as follows.

      	Outstanding (5)	Average (3)	Insufficient (1)
      1. Is the focus of the paper’s title clearly set?
      2. Are the research questions the paper aims to address specifically presented?
      3. Is the research question a significantly meaningful topic in its field?
      4. Is the research topic also very meaningful in both the theoretical and practical aspects of the field?
      5. Has the review of prior studies necessary for researching the set research questions been carried out very systematically?
      6. Does it encompass all the content necessary to solve the research problem?
      7.Were literature analysis and survey research conducted concurrently to solve the research problem?
      8. Has the result analysis through the distinction of experimental and control groups been carried out very scientifically?
      9. Are the research conclusions and suggestions based on the analysis results?
      10.Were the analysis results systematically derived for their significance and implications?
      11. Has the bibliography been organized accurately?
      Total Score / 50
      ※ Accept (Suitable for Publication): 46~50 / Minor (Publish after Revision): 41~25 / Major (Re-evaluate after Revision): 31~40 / Reject (Not Suitable for Publication): 30 or below.
      The final evaluation is based on the total scores of Table 1 and Table 2.
      Total Score / 100
      ※ Accept (Suitable for Publication): 90~100 / Minor (Publish after Revision): 80~89 / Major (Re-evaluate after Revision): 60~79 / Reject (Not Suitable for Publication): 59 or less.

      validity, if it’s deemed uneditable, if two out of three reviewers judge it as unpublishable, or if after 8 weeks without a clear reason the revised or final version isn’t submitted, considering the prompt process and timeliness of the paper, it’s judged as unpublishable after an editorial committee review. A detailed review of the research (Table 1), items checked (Table 2), and overall review opinions should be provided.
2. 2) When the revised paper is submitted, the editor appointed by the chief editor will review whether the revisions have been properly made. If the revisions based on the reviewer’s opinions are insufficient, if further edits are needed, or if the paper does not comply with the submission guidelines, publication can be withheld, and the author can be asked to revise again.
3. 3) Once the appointed editor completes the review of the paper, the chief editor refers to the third-party paper review comprehensive judgment form to make the final decision on whether to publish the paper.
   The third-party paper review comprehensive judgment form is as follows.
4. 4) If the author does not submit the revised manuscript within 4 weeks from the editorial board’s revision request date, it is considered a withdrawal by the author. However, if there is a request for an extension, an additional 4 weeks can be granted.
5. 5) The reviewer’s opinions are automatically notified to the author through the online paper submission and review system, and they are not disclosed to anyone other than the author.

The editorial committee decides on publication based on the review results. Once the appointed editor completes the review of the paper, the chief editor refers to the third-party paper review comprehensive judgment form to make the final decision on whether to publish the paper. The third-party paper review comprehensive judgment form is as follows.

1. 1) Upon the decision of publication, the editorial board holds the authority and duty to request edits to ensure the paper is in a printable state.
2. 2) If a revised or final version is not submitted within 8 weeks after the notice of possible publication or revision, without a clear reason, considering the expedient progression and timeliness of the paper, the editorial board, after deliberation, will deem it unpublishable. The editorial board should comprehensively present the detailed evaluation of the research (Table 1), inspection items (Table 2), and the deliberation opinions.
3. 3) If the editorial board identifies an error in an already published paper, it will be published as an erratum. If an author or reader identifies an error or content that needs to be corrected, they can request a modification post-publication. Depending on the matter, the editorial board may consider publishing an erratum or corrigendum and may even consider retraction. If a reader has comments about a paper, it will be conveyed to the author in the form of a letter. The author can reply to the reader’s letter. Both the letter to the editor and the author’s response can be published.

1. 1) The submitter has the right to object to the review and decision results within 5 days of receiving them and can request a review by attaching a reason and submitting it to the editor-in-chief.
2. 2) Upon receiving an objection regarding the paper review and decision results, the editor-in-chief should immediately convene the editorial board to review the raised objection, notify the submitter of the results, and take follow-up measures according to the review decision.
   1. (1) If the reviewer accepts the objection: The editorial board will forward the submitter’s objection to the concerned reviewer to provide a review opinion on the objection and modify the review result accordingly.
   2. (2) If the reviewer doesn’t accept the objection: The editorial board will comprehensively review the reasons for the submitter’s objection and the reviewer’s opinion. If the objection is deemed reasonable, a re-review will be requested after replacing the reviewer.

This regulation will be implemented from the day it is approved by the board of directors of the association.