The JIPS operates a web-based online paper submission and peer-review system which allows authors to submit their papers over the Internet and check the status of the submitted papers simply by logging into the system. It provides online peer-review services, tracks papers through the review process, and helps to minimize the amount of time taken from submission to final disposition.

When a paper is newly submitted to the online system, the JIPS managing editor looks over the paper and checks whether it is suitable for further processing (usually by checking the formatting requirements). If the paper passes the managing editor's check, the JIPS editor-in-chief appoints an associate editor to handle the paper's review process. The role of the associate editor is to manage the peer review process for papers submitted to the JIPS. The members of the JIPS editorial board believe that the quality - and therefore the value - of the journal is increased by selecting appropriate reviewers to identify quality papers, and by managing the peer review process efficiently. After gathering enough review results from the selected reviewers, the JIPS associate editor makes a ‘recommendation’, rather than a ‘decision’, on whether or not the paper should be accepted for publication. It is the editor-in-chief who makes the decision.


  1. Receipt of manuscript
    - file format in MS word or pdf specifying the technical field, title, abstract, and key words.

  2. Selection of associate editor and reviewers (within a week of receipt)
    - within 3 days of receiving the manuscript after Managing Editor's confirmation of the field, assignee routes the manuscript to associate editor via e-mail, and associate editor selects at least three reviewers.

  3. Requesting review (within one week)
    - associate editor sends the manuscript to selected reviewers via e-mail and asks for evaluation. In case when reviewer declines the request, associate editor selects another reviewer.

  4. Summating evaluation result (within 21 days)
    - In case when evaluation result is not collected within allotted time frame, the society should demand the evaluation result from the reviewer via written request and/or telephone. If the summation of the review result is delayed for over 60 days, a new reviewer is selected and proceeds with the review.

  5. Decision making of the review
    - publication of the manuscript is determined by the following guidelines upon two recommendations out of three reviewers.

    Reviewing Matrix

    - When two recommendations from the three reviewers fall below "Accept", the following procedure should be followed when making the decision.

    1. The paper is accepted for publication when two reviewers' recommend “Strongly Accept (SA)” or at least "Accept (A)."
    2. The paper is rejected and the review is concluded when at least one of the reviewers assigns "Strongly Reject (SR)".
    3. When one reviewer assigns "Accept" and the other reviewer assigns "Marginal (M)", the paper is submitted for re-reviewal by the reviewer who assigned "Marginal". In which case, if the grade of the second evaluation is again "Marginal" or below, the paper is rejected and the review is concluded.
    4. When both grades from the two reviewers are "Marginal", both reviewers are asked to re-review the paper, in which case the paper is accepted for publication only when both reviewers re-grade the paper as "Accept". The paper is rejected if either reviewer again assigns "Marginal" whereupon the review is concluded.
    5. When one reviewer assigns "Accept" and the other reviewer assigns "Reject (R)", one additional reviewer is selected and asked to conduct an additional review. If the paper is graded "Accept" by the additional reviewer, the paper is accepted for publication, whereas it is rejected if the grade given by the additional reviewer is "Marginal" or below.

    - The JIPS also supports language editing for non-English speaking authors in collaboration with the PanTransNet editing service company.

  6. Review procedure of manuscripts not approved for publication
    - The society relays reviewers' comments and suggestions to the author and asks to revise the manuscript accordingly and re-submit the manuscript within 30 days.
    - Upon receiving the revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to re-evaluate the revised manuscript. (within 14 days)
    - In the case when the re-evaluation is not completed within 21 days, respective associate editors are to make decision for publication based on the reviewers' original suggestions and the revised content of the manuscript, and the decision only is informed to the reviewer.