Article 2 (Examiners) Examiners are appointed for the examination of research papers.

1) Qualifications: An examiner must be a researcher in the field of qualitative research holding a Ph.D., a full-time faculty member at the college level or above, or a person with professional scholarly competence in the fields covered by the Association.

2) Selection and Anonymity:

   ① The editor-in-chief, after consultation with the editors, selects examiners for each submitted paper (as a rule, three examiners).

   ② The editorial board is responsible for thoroughly guaranteeing the anonymity of examiners.

Article 3 (Avoidance and Recusal / Exclusion) To ensure fair examination, a person who stands in a conflict of interest with the author—such as belonging to the same institution as the author, being a co-author, or being in an advisor–advisee relationship—shall be excluded from examining that paper. An examiner who becomes aware of such a conflict after assignment must notify the editors and recuse himself or herself.

Article 4 (Determining the Field of Examination) The editor-in-chief determines the field of examination by objective standards; where the field is determined to overlap, it is decided in consultation with the editors in the relevant field.

Article 5 (Preliminary Review) The editor-in-chief reviews whether the content and form of a submitted paper conform to the aims of the Association and the manuscript preparation guidelines, and selects the papers subject to the first examination.

Article 6 (Examination Principles) The examination principles are as follows.

1) Each paper is, as a rule, examined anonymously by three examiners whose names are undisclosed, and the editorial board commissions the first examination with regard to expertise in the relevant field.

2) The examination assesses creativity, applicability, validity of research method, research and analysis methods, use of expression and prior studies, academic value and contribution of the results, use of literature, and other editorial requirements.

3) Each examiner evaluates the paper, using the Association's examination form, as one of the following four ratings:

   ① Accept: only minor corrections such as typographical errors or simple wording are required; the paper is published after the author's correction.

   ② Accept after revision: the author revises the manuscript as requested, and the editorial board—without re-examination by the examiner—judges the adequacy of the revisions for publication.

   ③ Re-examination after revision: the author revises the manuscript as requested and the examiner re-examines it to determine final publication.

   ④ Reject: the quality of the paper is very low, or the required revisions are so extensive that publication in the relevant issue is judged to be difficult.

4) The editorial board determines the result according to the decision criteria it has established (based on the combination of the three examiners' ratings) and notifies the author. As a rule, the combined result is determined by the majority of the three ratings; where the ratings are evenly split or judgment is difficult, the editor-in-chief decides after consultation with the editors, and a fourth examiner may be commissioned where necessary.

5) An author whose paper is rated “accept after revision” or “re-examination after revision” must submit, within the set period, the revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response table to the editorial board.

6) The editor-in-chief, considering whether the requested revisions have been reflected and the quality of the paper, prepares the final decision and submits it to the editorial board.

7) A book review is published after examination by one examiner and appropriate revision where necessary.

Article 7 (Examination Period) An examiner must, as a rule, complete the examination and notify the editors of the result within two (2) weeks of the request. An examiner who determines that he or she is not the appropriate person to examine the paper must notify the editors promptly.

Article 8 (Confidentiality and Use of Generative AI) An examiner must keep the manuscript confidential and must not upload all or part of it to any generative AI tool that does not guarantee confidentiality.

Article 9 (Examination Procedures) The examination procedures are as follows.

1) Reception of the paper and determination of examiners (editorial board)

2) Examination of the paper (examiners)

3) Collection of results and decision on publication (editorial board)

4) Notification of results and publication status, and presentation of revision/supplementation matters (editorial board)

5) Reception of the final revised manuscript (editorial board)

6) Confirmation that revisions were addressed, agreement to publish, and publication confirmation (editorial board)

Article 10 (Fees and Resubmission)

1) There is no submission fee for authors.

2) There is no examination honorarium for examiners.

3) A paper disapproved for publication may be resubmitted after fundamental revision of its content.

Article 11 (Objections)

11.1 An author may raise objections to the editorial board's final review result by email or other written form.

11.2 After reviewing the objection, the editorial board may appoint a new examiner and conduct a re-examination.

Article 12 (Miscellaneous) Matters not provided for in these regulations are determined separately by the editorial board.

Additional Rule

1. These rules take effect on January 1, 2022.

2. These revised rules take effect on January 1, 2024.