Chapter 1 General Provisions
Article 1 (Name)
These rules shall be called the "Editorial Board Rules of Cultural Territory Studies."
Article 2 (Purpose)
The purpose of these rules is to prescribe matters concerning the organization and authority, duties and activities of the Editorial Board of Cultural Territory Studies, and the review of submitted papers.
Chapter 2 Organization and Authority
Article 3 (Composition)
The Editorial Board consists of one or two Editors-in-Chief, eight or more Editorial Board members, and one or more Editorial Secretaries.
Article 4 (Appointment)
The Editor-in-Chief is elected from among the Editorial Board members and appointed by the Chairperson of the Research Institute for Cultural Territory. The Editor-in-Chief shall be a person with outstanding research achievements in the relevant field and active academic activities at home and abroad.
Editorial Board members are appointed by the Chairperson on the recommendation of the Editorial Board. The recommendation of Editorial Board members shall comply with the following.
① They shall be researchers who can enhance the academic expertise of this journal, with high academic achievements and active academic activities in the relevant field.
② In consideration of regional balance, the affiliated institutions of the Editorial Board members shall be evenly distributed across six or more regions at home and abroad.
③ To ensure fairness in review, faculty members of any one university may not exceed one half of the total number of Editorial Board members.
The Editorial Secretary is appointed by the Chairperson, on the recommendation of the Editorial Board, from among professionals holding a doctoral degree or higher. The Editorial Secretary assists the Editorial Board and carries out all matters related to editing and publication.
Article 5 (Authority)
The Editorial Board has authority over all activities related to the review and editing of papers submitted to the journal and the editing of other publications.
Article 6 (Term of Office)
The term of office of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board members is two years.
Chapter 3 Duties and Activities
Article 7 (Duties)
1. The Editorial Board oversees all matters concerning the planning, review, editing, and publication of this journal.
2. The Editorial Board establishes the Editorial Board Rules, the journal's submission rules, and review rules, and applies them strictly.
3. The Editor-in-Chief has a duty to manage the paper review process strictly and bears final responsibility for the results of paper reviews.
4. The Editorial Board may separately select outstanding papers in order to improve the quality of the journal and to encourage outstanding researchers to submit to the journal.
Article 8 (Convocation)
The Editorial Board holds regular meetings at least twice a year and may be convened at any time as the Editor-in-Chief deems necessary.
Article 9 (Quorum)
1. A meeting of the Editorial Board is constituted by the attendance of the Editor-in-Chief and a majority of the Editorial Board members.
2. When the Editor-in-Chief is absent for unavoidable reasons, a person elected by agreement of the convened Editorial Board members may act on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief.
3. Editorial Board members who are unable to attend for unavoidable reasons but have delegated their votes on the agenda items are regarded as present.
4. In principle, the Editorial Board meets in person, but when unavoidable, a remote meeting may be held instead.
Article 10 (Resolutions)
Agenda items of the Editorial Board are resolved by a majority vote of the members present. However, in the event of a tie, the Editor-in-Chief decides.
Chapter 4 Review of Submitted Papers
Article 11 (Reviewers)
1. Reviewers are appointed by the Editorial Board.
2. Reviewers must be specialists in the relevant field who are able to review the paper in question. However, when specialists in the relevant field are lacking, specialists in an adjacent field may be appointed as reviewers.
3. A person who has a special relationship with the author of a paper may not be appointed as a reviewer.
4. Three reviewers are assigned to each paper.
Article 12 (Duty of Anonymity and Confidentiality)
1. Manuscripts for review must be delivered anonymously to each reviewer, and all matters concerning the review shall be kept confidential under the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
2. In the event of a violation of the duty of anonymity and confidentiality, the Editorial Board resolves on and carries out disciplinary action.
3. When a paper submitted by an Editorial Board member is reviewed, the reviewers shall be selected after that member has been excused from the meeting.
Article 13 (Review Procedure)
1. Review proceeds in three stages: first, second, and third review.
2. In the first review, the Editorial Secretary examines whether the submitted paper meets all requirements. If the submitted paper suits the nature of this journal and does not violate any rules, the second review proceeds. However, if the proportion of submissions from a particular institution (school) among all submissions (including those from abroad) would exceed one third, review may be postponed to the next issue in the order of submission.
3. In the second review, three reviewers appointed by the Editorial Board evaluate the paper from a qualitative perspective.
4. Reviewers review the papers assigned to them and submit to the Editorial Board a judgment of "Accept," "Accept after Revision," "Re-review after Revision," or "Reject."
5. The Editorial Board examines the results of the three reviewers and makes the final decision of "Accept," "Accept after Revision," "Re-review after Revision," or "Reject" for the submitted paper.
6. For papers judged "Accept" or "Accept after Revision," the Editorial Board examines the reviewers' opinions and notifies the author of the required revisions.
7. For papers judged "Accept" or "Accept after Revision," the author shall revise the manuscript within the prescribed period after receiving the review report and send it to the Editorial Board.
8. Among papers judged "Accept after Revision," the Editorial Board makes the final decision to publish only those papers in which the required revisions have been faithfully carried out or explained.
9. For papers judged "Re-review after Revision" or "Reject," the Editorial Board examines the reviewers' opinions and notifies the author.
10. The third review is conducted only for papers judged "Re-review after Revision," with one reviewer appointed by the Editorial Board, and the result is judged only as "Accept" or "Reject." However, the third review may be postponed to the next issue in consideration of the publication schedule, and if the author does not submit the revised manuscript by the designated deadline (up to 90 days from the date of notification of the review result), the paper is confirmed as "Reject."
Article 14 (Review Criteria)
1. Review results are divided into item-by-item evaluation (review opinions), overall evaluation (publication decision), and general review comments (review content).
2. The item-by-item evaluation is conducted according to the following ten criteria, with each criterion scored from 2 to 10 points.
① Is the topic of the paper original?
② Is the review of relevant theories, including cultural territory theory, sufficient?
③ Is the research method appropriate?
④ Is the structure of the paper logical?
⑤ Is the content of the paper consistent?
⑥ Does the writing comply with the submission rules and research ethics rules?
⑦ What is the academic contribution of the research?
⑧ Are the references cited accurately?
⑨ Is the abstract appropriate?
⑩ Are the foreign-language abstract and keywords appropriate?
3. The overall evaluation is one of "Accept," "Accept after Revision," "Re-review after Revision," or "Reject."
4. The general review comments describe the grounds and opinions for the item-by-item evaluation and the overall evaluation as a whole, and if there are required revisions, they must be presented specifically.
Article 15 (Final Decision on Publication)
1. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on, and takes responsibility for, all matters concerning publication.
2. The final decision on publication combines the results of the three reviewers into four grades: "Accept," "Accept after Revision," "Re-review after Revision," and "Reject."
3. Based on the reviewers' results, the Editorial Board assigns 3 points for Accept, 2 points for Accept after Revision, 1 point for Re-review after Revision, and 0 points for Reject, and decides on publication in order of the highest scores. Other detailed review procedures and methods follow the review procedure in Article 13 and the review criteria in Article 14.
Article 16 (Appeals)
1. Authors may file an appeal regarding the content of the review and the decision on publication.
2. An author wishing to appeal shall prepare an appeal form stating the reasons and send it to the Editorial Board.
3. For the paper of an author who has filed an appeal, the Editorial Board decides whether to accept the appeal and, if it is judged valid, takes action.
<Addendum>
These rules apply from the publication of Cultural Territory Studies Vol. 7 No. 2 (September 30, 2026).