1. Screening before peer review
If the manuscript does not fit the aims and scope of the Journal or does not adhere to the Instructions to authors, it may be returned to the author immediately after receipt and without a review. Before reviewing, all submitted manuscripts are inspected by Similarity Check powered by iThenticate, a plagiarism-screening tool. If a too high a degree of similarity score is found, the Editorial Board will do a more profound content screening. The excess amount of similarity in specific sentences may be also checked in every manuscript. The settings for Similarity Check screening are as follows: It excludes quotes, bibliography, small matches of 6 words, small sources of 1%, and the Methods section.
2. Reviewer selection
Two or more reviewers will be selected from the list or reviewers. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by experts in the corresponding field.
3. Peer review process
The author’s name and affiliation is not disclosed during review process to reviewers. The names of reviewers will not be revealed to the author. The screening before review period is usually one week. Usually the first decision is made within three weeks after completion of the review. The Editorial Board’s decision after the review will be one of followings: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, or Rejection. The Editorial Board may request the authors to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. If there are any requests for revision of the manuscript by the reviewers, the authors should do their best to revise the manuscript. If the reviewer's opinion is not acceptable or is believed to misinterpret the data, the author should reasonably indicate that. After revising the manuscript, the author should upload the revised files with a reply to each item of the reviewer's commentary. The author's revisions should be completed within 30 days after the request. If it is not received by the due date, the Editorial Board will notify the author. To extend the revision period beyond 30 days, the author should negotiate that with the Editorial Board. The manuscript review process can be provided mostly for up two rounds. If the reviewers wish further review, the Editorial Board may consider it. The Editorial Board will make a final decision on the approval of the submitted manuscript for publication and can request any further corrections, revisions, and deletions of the article text if necessary. Statistical editing is also performed if the data requires professional statistical review by a statistician.
4. Process after acceptance
If the manuscript is finally accepted, the proofreading will be sent to the corresponding author after professional manuscript editing and/or English proofreading. Proofreading should be performed again for any misspellings or errors by the authors. The finally accepted manuscript will be reviewed by manuscript editor for the consistency of the format and the completeness of references. The manuscript may be revised according to the opinion of the manuscript editor. Before final proofreading, the manuscript may appear at the journal homepage as an epub ahead of print with a unique DOI number for rapid communication. The epub ehead of print version will be replaced by the replacement XML file and a final PDF. All or a part of the abstracts will be indexed to a variety of databases including Google Scholar, DOI/CrossRef, KoreaMed, KoMCI, ScienceCentral, and Directory of Open Access Journals abstract metadata.
5. Feedback after publication and Complaints
If the authors or readers find any errors, or contents that should be revised, it can be requested from the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board may consider erratum, corrigendum or a retraction. If there are any revisions to the article, there will be a Crossmark description to announce the final draft. If there is a reader’s opinion on the published article with the form of Letter to the editor, it will be forwarded to the authors. The authors can reply to the reader’s letter. Letter to the editor and the author’s reply may be also published.
6. Process for handing complaints and appeals
The policy of ACC is primarily aimed at protecting the authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher of the journal. If not described below, the process of handling complaints and appeals follows the guidelines of the Committee of Publication Ethics(COPE) available from: https://publicationethics.org/appeals
Submitters, authors, reviewers, and readers may register complaints and appeals in a variety of cases as follows: falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, duplicate publication, authorship dispute, conflict of interest, ethical treatment of animals, informed consent, bias or unfair/inappropriate competitive acts, copyright, stolen data, defamation, and legal problem. If any individuals or institutions want to inform the cases, they can send a letter via the contact page on our website: https://www.accjournal.org/about/contact.php. For the complaints or appeals, concrete data with answers to all factual questions (who, when, where, what, how, why) should be provided.
The editor, editorial board, or editorial office have responsibility for them. A legal consultant or ethics editor who is the member of committee for publication ethics in Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (https://www.kamje.or.kr) or in Korean Council of Science Editors (https://www.kcse.org) may be able to help with the decision making. The consequence depends on the type or degree of misconduct. The consequence of resolution will follow the guidelines of the COPE.