3Co. Design Regulations

Article 1 (General Rules of the Editorial Board)

• 1. The purpose of this regulation is to set rules regarding the operation of the <Sustainable Design> Editorial Board.
• 2. An Editorial Board is established to deliberate on the review, editing, and publication of papers published in <Sustainable Design> published by this Lab.
• 3. Discusses and resolves all enactments, revisions, and abolitions related to the Editorial Board.

Article 2 (Composition and Term of the Editorial Board)

• 1. The Editorial Board is selected by the Board of Directors among the Lab members who are at least assistant professors, hold a doctoral degree, or have more than 10 years of experience in design-related fields.
• 2. The capacity of the Editorial Board is around 10 members considering research achievements in sub-fields and regional distribution.
  • 1) 1 Editor-in-Chief
  • 2) Up to 2 Deputy Editors
  • 3) Around 10 Editorial Board Members (including Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors)
  • 4) 1 Editorial Secretariat
• 3. The Chairperson is taken by the Vice President of the Academic Papers Division of the Lab, and appointed by the President with the approval of the Board of Directors.
• 4. The Deputy Chairperson is appointed by the Director of the Lab upon the recommendation of the Chairperson among the directors of the academic division, and assists the Chairperson to execute the practical affairs of the Editorial Board.
• 5. Members are proposed by the Chairperson, approved by the Board of Directors, and appointed by the Director of the Lab. Considering the expertise of the members at the time of appointment, the principle is those who have published 5 or more academic papers (including books) in the last 3 years.
• 6. The term of the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, and members is 2 years and can be reappointed.

Article 3 (Duties and Authorities of the Editorial Board)

• 1. The Editorial Board has an independent status regarding the editing work of <Sustainable Design>.
  • ① The Editorial Board deliberates on regulations concerning the content composition, submission, and review of the publication of the academic journal <Sustainable Design>, forms the committee, recommends and appoints reviewers, and requests reviews.
  • ② The Editorial Board independently decides whether to publish the paper through evaluation, exchange of opinions between submitters and reviewers, and mediation based on the review results.
  • ③ The Editorial Board has the authority to make decisions related to other editing and publishing of the Lab's journal, such as publication order, number of copies issued, electronic publication format, review fees, and submission fees.
• 2. The Editor-in-Chief must report the results of editing and publishing the academic journal to the Board of Directors.
• 3. Editorial members must not leak personal information of members acquired through Editorial Board activities to the outside.

Article 4 (Publication of Special Issues)

1. If there is a special reason, a special issue may be published after resolution by the Editorial Board. However, papers published in the special issue can only be published if they have passed the review process set by the editing regulations of <Sustainable Design> and have been judged suitable.

Article 5 (Editorial Board Organization and Budget)

• 1. The Editor-in-Chief must convene the Editorial Board at least 4 times a year. However, Editorial Board meetings may be replaced by meetings via email considering nationwide distribution.
• 2. The Editorial Board meeting is convened when the Editor-in-Chief deems it necessary or at the request of more than one-third of the editorial members in connection with the review and publication of <Sustainable Design>, and is resolved with the attendance of a majority and the consent of a majority of the attending members. If necessary, an online meeting can be held. The decisions of the online meeting are valid as the decisions of the main session. Also, the activities of this committee must be reported in writing to the Board of Directors.
• 3. The Editor-in-Chief may convene subcommittees as needed.
• 4. Expenses required for editing work are covered by submission fees and publication fees, and any shortfall is supported by the budget of the Korea Brand Design Research Institute.

Article 6 (Editorial Board Others - Editorial Advisory Committee)

• 1. An Editorial Advisory Committee is formed for other systematic tasks related to the editing and publication of the Lab's journal.
• 2. Editorial Advisory Committee members are prominent authorities with outstanding achievements in brand design and related academics, proposed by the Editor-in-Chief and appointed by the Director of the Lab. Also, the former Editor-in-Chief is appointed ex officio.
• 3. The term of the Editorial Advisory Committee members is 3 years and can be reappointed.
• 4. The role of the Editorial Advisory Committee is to advise on the academic validity and social/ethical responsibility of the editing and research contents regarding this academic journal. It also reviews and advises on the selection of academic awards every year.
• 5. Editorial Advisory Committee meetings are irregular meetings convened and conducted by the Editor-in-Chief.

Article 7 (Matters Outside the Regulations)

1. Matters not stipulated in this regulation shall be determined by the decision of the Editorial Board.

Chapter 1 General Provisions

• Article 1 (Purpose)
  The purpose of this regulation is to establish research ethics to be observed by researchers publishing papers in academic conferences or journals hosted/published by the Lab, to prevent misconduct related to research activities in advance, and to stipulate matters related to the operation of the Research Ethics Committee established for fair and systematic verification of truthfulness when misconduct occurs.
• Article 2 (Subject of Application)
  This regulation applies to all researchers directly or indirectly related to academic research activities within the Lab.
• Article 3 (Scope of Application)
  Except as otherwise specifically provided for regarding research ethics misconduct of the Lab, this regulation shall apply.
• Article 4 (Definition of Terms)
  The following acts that harm the truth of research by intent or gross negligence in the process of conducting and presenting research are considered research misconduct.
  • 1. Plagiarism: The act of stealing all or part of another person's research content without indicating the source.
  • 2. Forgery: The act of falsely making and recording non-existent data or research results.
  • 3. Falsification: The act of distorting research content or results by arbitrarily altering or omitting data related to research contrary to facts.
  • 4. Duplicate Publication: The act of publishing or publishing again all or part of the research content previously published by oneself without justifiable approval or proper citation.
  • 5. Unjustified Authorship: The act of not granting paper authorship to a person who contributed to the research content or results, or granting paper authorship to a person who did not contribute to the research.
  • 6. The act of deliberately interfering with the investigation into allegations of one's own or another's misconduct or causing harm to an informant.
• Article 5 (Duty of Researcher to Observe Research Ethics)
  Researchers publishing papers in this Lab must faithfully fulfill their responsibilities as academic researchers, and must strictly observe the Lab's Charter of Academic Research Ethics and related norms when conducting academic research activities.
• Article 6 (Establishment of Research Ethics Committee)
  A Research Ethics Committee is established to deliberate on matters necessary for researchers publishing papers in this Lab to observe research ethics norms.

Chapter 2 Ethical Guidelines for Researchers

• Article 1 Attitude as a researcher publishing a paper in this Lab
  
  Section 1 (Respect for Rights and Dignity of Researchers)

  ① Researchers respect human values and do not discriminate against human beings on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, disability, etc.
  ② Researchers respect the character and rights of other researchers and acknowledge mutual academic diversity.
  ③ Researchers must not engage in acts that damage the honor and dignity of the Lab and other researchers for personal gain.
  ④ Researchers must be careful not to cause damage to the Lab, other researchers, and research participants due to their own words and actions.

  Section 2 (Efforts to Improve Professionalism)

  ① Researchers must endeavor to grasp the latest information in the design field and cultivate professional knowledge through continuous research.
  ② Researchers must continue efforts for self-development through developing new research methods, academic research, exchanges with other disciplines and related industries, training, etc.

• Article 2 Attitude as a Researcher
  

  ① Researchers must not engage in plagiarism, which steals ideas, research contents, results, etc. of others without justifiable approval or citation.

  ② Researchers must not engage in falsification, which distorts research contents or results by artificially manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, etc., or arbitrarily transforming or deleting data.

  ③ Researchers must not engage in forgery, which falsely creates non-existent data or research results.

  ④ Researchers must not grant authorship of a paper to a person who did not directly participate in the research and only made scientific, technical, or design contributions or contributions, for reasons such as an expression of gratitude or courtesy.

  ⑤ Researchers must not make duplicate submissions or double publications of research materials that have already been published.

  ⑥ When researchers quote published academic data or writings of others, they must accurately describe them and necessarily reveal the source, and even when borrowing the ideas of others, they must obtain the consent of the information provider.

  ⑦ When researchers conduct research on humans, they consider the human rights and safety of the subjects as the top priority.

Chapter 3 Ethical Guidelines for Academic Journal Publishing Institutions

• Article 1 Regulations on Protection of Researcher Information and Research Contents
  

  ① The Lab must endeavor to protect the personal information and privacy of researchers.
  ② When it is necessary to disclose the personal information of researchers and the contents of ongoing research, the Lab discloses it to a minimum on the premise of their consent, and when information disclosure is legally required, custom is followed.

• Article 2 Regulations to be Observed by Editorial Board Members
  

  ① The Editorial Board members of this Lab must respect the personality and academic beliefs of researchers and decide whether to publish the submitted research materials solely based on the qualitative level of the research and the submission regulations.
  ② The Editorial Board members must request the evaluation of the submitted paper to a reviewer who has specialized knowledge in the relevant field and can make a fair judgment.
  ③ Until the publication of the paper is decided, Editorial Board members must not disclose the research content, publication status, review results, etc., to anyone other than the reviewers.

• Article 3 Ethical Regulations to be Observed by Reviewers
  

  ① Reviewers who receive a review request must evaluate the paper subject to review fairly and faithfully based on objective criteria within the specified period and notify the Editorial Board of the results.
  ② When reviewers present their opinions on a paper, they must respect the author and the research material personally and academically as a professional intellectual.
  ③ Reviewers must keep secrets about the paper subject to review and must not engage in acts of disclosing or citing the contents of the paper without the author's consent before the academic journal in which the paper is published is printed.

Chapter 4 Guidelines for Confirmation and Implementation of Research Ethics Regulations

Chapter 5 Establishment and Operation of Research Ethics Committee

• Article 1 Function
  This Lab establishes an Ethics Committee to promote the proper implementation of these research ethics regulations and deliberate on violations. Its functions are as follows.
  

  ① Establish a plan to prevent research misconduct
  ② Receipt and investigation of reports on research misconduct
  ③ Deliberation and judgment on research misconduct
  ④ Decisions on sanctions against research misconduct perpetrators and follow-up measures

• Article 2 Composition
  

  ① The Ethics Committee consists of at least 7 members, including the Director of this Lab, Auditor, Secretary, and Editor-in-Chief.
  ② The Chairperson is the Director of the Lab, who represents the committee and presides over meetings.

• Article 3 Operation
  

  ① Meetings of the Committee are convened and hosted by the Chairperson when necessary.
  ② The Ethics Committee must provide an opportunity for explanation through hearings, written documents, etc., to the researcher designated for violating research ethics regulations.
  ③ The investigation and processing procedures of the Ethics Committee consist of a preliminary investigation and a main investigation.
  ④ In principle, all related meetings are closed, and members must keep secrets about all matters related to the deliberation.

Chapter 6 Verification of Research Misconduct and Sanction Measures

• Article 1 Verification of Research Misconduct
  

  ① The Committee must investigate whether research misconduct exists when there is a specific report or considerable suspicion.
  ② The Committee must equally guarantee the informant and the person subject to deliberation the opportunity to state their opinions, raise objections, and argue.
  ③ As a result of the verification, if a judgment of a violation of research ethics is made with the attendance of a majority of all members and the consent of a majority of the attending members, the Committee confirms the act of the person subject to deliberation as research misconduct.

• Article 2 Research Misconduct Investigation Procedures
  
  Section 1 Preliminary Investigation

  ① Review by the Committee: Immediately upon receiving the reported document, the Chairperson convenes the Committee to let the members read the reported document and collects opinions on whether the reported content falls under the category of misconduct. If it is judged that there is a reason to suspect that misconduct has occurred, a preliminary investigation is conducted.
  ② The preliminary investigation is conducted by holding a committee meeting after notifying the relevant researcher of the reported content and requiring them to submit explanatory materials. If the relevant researcher fails to submit explanatory materials without a justifiable reason within 15 days from the date of notification, it is considered an admission of misconduct.
  ③ If the reported content does not correspond to misconduct, or the degree of the problem is insignificant and it is clearly a simple mistake, or the relevant researcher admits all misconduct, the Committee makes a judgment immediately without going through the main investigation procedure.
  ④ In the preliminary investigation, if it is decided not to conduct the main investigation, the specific reasons for this are notified in writing to the informant within 10 days from the decision date. However, in the case of an anonymous report, this procedure is omitted.
  ⑤ If the informant objects to the result of the preliminary investigation, they can raise an objection to the Committee by presenting specific grounds within 10 days from the date of receiving the notification.

  Section 2 Main Investigation

  The Committee conducts the main investigation in the following cases.
  ① When the relevant researcher does not admit part or all of the misconduct, and the Committee judges that there is still reason to suspect misconduct after reviewing the informant's document and the relevant researcher's explanatory details.
  ② When it was decided not to conduct the main investigation in the preliminary investigation, but the informant objected to this and raised an objection, and specific grounds for this are recognized.
  ③ The main investigation must commence within 20 days from the date of the relevant researcher's explanation or the informant's objection to the results of the preliminary investigation.
  ④ The Committee appoints 3 experts in the relevant field as research ethics review members to conduct an expert investigation into the misconduct.

• Article 3 Sanction Measures
  

  ① Publication is canceled for papers determined to have committed research misconduct.
  ② The fact of canceling the publication of the relevant paper and the details of the research ethics violation are announced on the Lab's website.
  ③ Among the relevant research misconduct perpetrators, if the degree of misconduct is light or clearly a simple mistake, the Committee may decide on disciplinary actions such as recommending revision or withdrawal of the relevant paper, a pledge of truthfulness in future research, and a ban on submitting papers and academic presentations for a period of 2 years or less, depending on the case.
  ④ If the misconduct falls under Article 4, Paragraphs 1-5 of Chapter 1 of this regulation and is certain to have been intentional, submission of papers is banned for the next 3 years.
  ⑤ If the relevant research misconduct perpetrator other than Article 2, Paragraph 3 of Chapter 6 of this regulation is a researcher of this Lab, the qualification as a researcher is stripped for the next 3 years.
  ⑥ If the misconduct falls under Article 4, Paragraphs 1-5 of Chapter 1 of this regulation and is certain to have been intentional, the Committee must also conduct an investigation in accordance with Chapter 6 of this regulation on the previous published papers that the relevant researcher had published in the Lab's academic journal.

• Article 4 Statute of Limitations for Verification and Discipline
  

  ① There is no statute of limitations on the verification of research misconduct.
  ② Misconduct committed more than 5 full years prior to the date of receipt of the report shall not be disciplined. However, even if it is misconduct from more than 5 years ago, if the relevant researcher directly re-cites the result and uses it in follow-up research within 5 years, it is considered that the violation has occurred again.

1. Purpose and Content

• 1) The purpose of this regulation is to increase the efficiency and transparency of the submission process by stipulating the methods of submitting and writing papers for review submitted to Sustainable Design.
• 2) Submitted papers must be related to design, contribute to the development of related academics and industries, and must be recognized for their originality. Contents published in other domestic or foreign academic journals cannot be submitted. However, exceptions are made for those submitted to academic research presentation conferences.
• 3) Submitted manuscripts are decided for publication through a review based on the paper review regulations of this journal.

2. Submission Qualification

• 1) There are no restrictions on submission qualifications for this academic journal. Any researcher in design-related fields can submit.
• 2) The number of papers that can be published under the name of the same author among the papers published in one issue of this academic journal is limited to within 2 papers, including co-authors.

3. Types and Categories of Papers

• 1) Research Paper
  Refers to a paper in which a topic related to design is theoretically or empirically discussed, demonstrating a valid structure of argumentation, and possessing academic originality, or even if it is basic research, it refers to a paper that can greatly contribute to academic discourse by including new facts or valuable considerations in the research process or content.
• 2) Project Paper
  Refers to a paper containing logical descriptions of design outcomes that are recognized for academic value and have comprehensive completeness.

4. Manuscript Submission Method

• 1) Online Submission
  Submitters wishing to submit a paper to this academic journal submit it online after registering as a member on the homepage of Hanyang University 3Co. Design Lab (https://hanyanglab.com/). Also, the submitted paper must be submitted after deleting all information that can identify the author, such as name, affiliation, and acknowledgment phrases.

5. Manuscript Writing Guidelines

• 1) Language of Writing
  The language can be either Korean or English, and if it is in English, the title translated into Korean is indicated below the title.
• 2) Paper Length
  The minimum length of papers that can be submitted is based on at least 8 pages.
• 3) Composition of the Manuscript
  In principle, the manuscript is composed in the order of Title (Korean and English), Table of Contents, Korean Abstract, English Abstract, Keywords, Main Body, and References.
• 5) Korean and English Abstracts
  The Korean and English abstracts are written concisely, including the research purpose, research methods, research content, and conclusion.
• 6) Keywords
  Keywords are written in the format of "Korean (English)" with up to 5 words that can represent the content of the paper. The first letter of the alphabet is written as a capital letter. (e.g.) Keywords: 대학교(University) ...
• 7) Paper Title/Body Title
  For English paper titles, the first letter of nouns is capitalized. The content of the main body should basically be able to develop a clear argument in the order of introduction, development, turn, and conclusion, and the body titles are entered in the order of 1. / 1.1. / 1.1.1... When a large heading (Chapter) changes, leave one line blank before changing to the next heading, and in the case of a middle heading (Section) or a small heading (Clause), write without leaving a blank line.
  (e.g.) 4. Results and Discussion
  4.1. Characteristics of Male Consumers
  4.1.1. Demographic Characteristics
• 8) Margins and Font Style
  Follow the attached files (sample.hwpx, sample.docx) for margins and font styles.
• 9) How to create Tables and Figures
  Follow the attached files (sample.hwpx, sample.docx) for margins and font styles.
• 10) Literature Citation Style in the Main Body
  • ① When there are 2 or fewer authors
    e.g. 1) Hong Gil-dong (2014) discussed..., Hong Gil-dong and Kim Han-gook (2015) discussed..., ... discussed as such (Hong Gil-dong, 2014).
    For foreigners, only the last name is indicated.
    e.g. 2) In the study of Jasper and Lan (1992)..., ... (Jasper & Lan, 1992).
  • ② When there are 3 or more authors
    The name of the main author and the number of the remaining personnel are written, and for foreigners, 'et al.' is written after the name.
    e.g.) In the study by Hong Gil-dong et al. (2014)..., ...(Jasper et al., 1993)
  • ③ When citing many previous studies
    Author names are listed in alphabetical order, and if they have the same name, they are listed in chronological order.
    e.g.) As in previous studies (Kim Han-gook et al., 2014; Lee Kyung-soon, 2008; Lee Kyung-soon, 2014; Hong Gil-dong, 2012)...
• 11) References
  References are indicated as follows.
  • ① Order of References
    The order is Koreans first in alphabetical order (Ga, Na, Da), and authors written in English are sorted alphabetically. In the case of multiple references by the same author, single-author references are entered before co-authored references. In the case of authors in the same year, they are in alphabetical order of the title. In the case of consecutive references by the same author in the same year, mark a, b, c, etc., in front of the publication year as shown in the example.
    e.g.) Schmidt, J. R. (2000a). Control … / Schmidt, J. R. (2000b). Roles of …
  • ② Periodic Academic Journals
    e.g. 1) Hong Gil-dong. (2014). A Study on Jacket Design. Journal of Art & Design Research, 13(2), 103-117.
    e.g. 2) Herman, L. M., Kuczaj, S. A., & Holder, M. D. (2014). A study on the jacket..... . Journal of Art & Design Research, 13(2), 103-117.
  • ③ Books
    - If there is an author or editor
    e.g. 1) Hong Gil-dong, Kim Han-gook. (2014). 「Theory of Design」. Seoul: Kyunghee Press.
    e.g. 2) Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (1993). 「The element of style」 (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
    - If there is no author or editor
    e.g. 1) 「Encyclopedia of Design」. (2000). Seoul: Kyung Hee University Press.
    e.g. 2) 「College bound seniors」 (3rd ed.). (1979). Princeton, NJ: College Board Publications.
  • ④ Reports and Dissertations
    e.g. 1) Hong Gil-dong. (2014). Applied research on generalizability theory, Ph.D. Dissertation, Hankook University Graduate School.
    e.g. 2) Devins, G. M. (1981). Helplessness, depression, and mood in end-stage renal disease. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
  • ⑤ In case of Websites
    Write the website address, followed by the date of search.
    e.g.) http://www.khu.ac.kr/main.do (2017.08.15.)
• 12) English Papers
  English papers follow the format of Korean papers, but the Abstract content and main body content are in Times New Roman font, and all titles (chapter, section, clause) are in Nanum Gothic font.

6. Review and Publication Fees

• 1) The publication fee is payable after the manuscript is accepted for publication following the review. A separate review fee of 100,000 KRW must be paid in advance upon manuscript submission.
• 2) The standard length for each manuscript is 10 printed pages, and the basic publication fee is 100,000 KRW. An additional fee of 20,000 KRW per 2 pages will be charged for manuscripts exceeding 10 pages. (e.g., an additional 40,000 KRW for a 14-page manuscript; odd pages are calculated based on the next even page.)

7. Copyright

• 1) The copyright of all papers, editorials, artworks, etc., published in Sustainable Design issued by this Lab belongs to 3Co. Design Lab, and the act of submission itself is interpreted as agreeing to transfer the copyright to this Lab after publication.
• 2) If the published paper, editorial, artwork, etc., infringes on another's copyright, the submitter is entirely responsible.

1. Purpose

This regulation aims to prescribe the review and acceptance of papers submitted to "Sustainable Design".

2. Selection of Reviewers

• 1) The Editor-in-Chief of Sustainable Design requests the recommendation of reviewers to all editorial members only for papers that have passed the submission suitability check.
• 2) Sustainable Design editorial members recommend multiple reviewers with expertise in each paper. The Sustainable Design Editorial Board creates a list of review requests based on the names recommended by the editorial members. The Editor-in-Chief may additionally request the editorial members to recommend reviewers if necessary.

3. Request for Paper Review

• 1) The Sustainable Design Editorial Board assigns 3 reviewers per paper and requests a review based on the list of review requests.
• 2) If 3 reviewers are not secured due to a reviewer's refusal to review, etc., the list of review requests is added at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and the review request is completed.
• 3) The Sustainable Design Editorial Board sends all documents for review to the reviewers who have accepted the review. If a reviewer who has accepted the review cannot proceed with the paper review due to unavoidable circumstances, they must immediately inform the Sustainable Design Editorial Board of this fact and return all documents.
• 4) A prescribed review fee is paid to the paper reviewers.
• 5) Ensure that the identity of the submitter is not exposed to the reviewers during the review process.

4. Review Period

• 1) In principle, the reviewer returns the review result within 14 days from the date of receiving the review commission in the case of an initial review.
• 2) If the reviewer receives a review commission and fails to submit a review opinion within 14 days, the Editor-in-Chief issues a first reminder, and if the review opinion is not submitted within 5 days from then, the reviewer may be dismissed.
• 3) A dismissed reviewer must immediately return all review documents to the Sustainable Design Editorial Board.

5. Review by Reviewers

• 1) The review criteria are based on the review of the components of the paper (Korean abstract, Korean keywords, English abstract, English keywords, introduction, main body, conclusion, references) and the originality, clarity of the paper content, completeness of the paper composition and structure, quality of the paper abstract, level of verification, and academic value and contribution to design.
• 2) Based on the review evaluation criteria, the reviewer must judge the paper review result as one of Accept, Accept with Minor Revisions, Revise and Resubmit, or Reject, and return it to the Sustainable Design Editorial Board.
• 3) The review summary uses specific and clear expressions, and if it is determined that the paper content needs to be revised, the reviewer must specify the revisions. If it is judged as 'Reject', the reviewer must definitely state the valid reason in the paper review opinion form.

6. Judgment of Review Results

• 1) If 2 or more opinions out of 3 are 'Accept with Minor Revisions', an opportunity for publication is given. If 2 or more opinions out of 3 are 'Reject', the paper is not accepted. Based on these results, the Editorial Board makes the final review decision and notifies the author and reviewers of the results.
• 2) If the review result is 'Accept with Minor Revisions', the author is requested to submit the final manuscript after undergoing revisions of the paper.
• 3) If the review result is 'Revise and Resubmit', the author is requested to submit a revised manuscript and a response letter to the review opinions, and a re-review is requested.
• 4) If the review result is 'Reject', the review result is notified to the author.

7. Re-review Procedures

• 1) The re-review is in charge of the reviewer who judged 'Revise and Resubmit' or 'Reject', but if necessary, the Editorial Board may commission a new reviewer to proceed. At this time, if 1 or more reviewers judge 'Reject', it is processed as a final 'Reject'.
• 2) Re-reviewers must return the review results within 7 days from the date of receiving the review manuscript.
• 3) If the author is requested to revise the paper and does not submit the revised paper within 7 days without expressing any intention, the Editorial Board handles it as 'Reject'.
• 4) The re-review is limited to a maximum of 1 time, and if the review judgment up to the 1st re-review procedure does not reach 'Accept' or 'Accept with Minor Revisions', it is judged as 'Reject'.

8. Decision and Notification of Publication

• 1) The Sustainable Design Editorial Board finalizes whether to publish and notifies the author and all editorial members.
• 2) If the author postpones the publication in the current journal or does not want to publish, they must notify the Editorial Board 7 days prior to the publication date.
• 3) The author can file a written objection to the paper review judgment result within 3 days after the notification of the review result, and the Editorial Board commissions a new panel of reviewers through strict review, but if it becomes impossible to publish the paper in the relevant issue due to exceeding the submission period during this process, the author cannot object to this.

9. Publication Regulations

The academic journal is published twice a year on August 31 and December 31.

10. Security

Any information related to paper review cannot be disclosed to others.