1. According to Article 13 of the Institute Regulations, the Editorial Board (hereinafter “Board”) is organized to review matters related to the editing and publication of journals and books; to chart the course of the academic journal that is periodically published by the Ewha Research Institute for Translation Studies (hereinafter “Institute”), in addition to submitting and reviewing papers for the journal and; to implement tasks related to the editing and publishing of selected articles. The Board shall consist of at least five members both from within and out of the university appointed by the director of the Institute. The chairperson shall be elected by mutual vote among the members.
2. The term of the Board members shall be two years and with consecutive terms allowed. However, in case of a new member who was appointed to fill a vacancy, the term shall last for the remainder of the predecessor's term. In order to take care of administrative matters for the Board, a secretary shall be designated to take and keep minutes of the Board.

1. The Board shall determine the criteria for article submission and review.
2. The chairperson shall request the selection of reviewers for papers submitted. The Board shall refer to the review results and make the final decision on whether to publish the paper. The Board shall meet periodically but members can submit a written letter to count as attendance. Resolutions shall be made by an affirmative vote from over the majority of the attending members.

1. Submission of papers is possible until the last day that was announced. The chairperson shall immediately upon arrival of the submitted paper, confirm the receipt of the paper and send confirmation to the submitter.
2. Papers that do not adhere to rules regarding submission or composition shall not be accepted.
3. Pledge of Compliance for Research Ethics (obtained through the online system if the paper is submitted online), Consent to the Use of Copyrighted Content, and the dissertation plagiarism checker report shall be submitted upon paper submission. A similarity of 15 percent or below is acceptable.
4. In the case where there is a possible conflict of interest or a specially related person(s) may participate in research as a co-author, such information shall be reported by indicating in a prescribed form.

1. The reviewers are selected primarily from Board members who are professional experts with outstanding academic records in the relevant field of study. Contributors to the journal for which papers are currently being evaluated shall be excluded from the pool of reviewers.
2. Mutual evasion in kinship as reviewersOnce the paper is submitted, the contributor may suggest a list of ‘reviewers to be excluded’ with a reasonable excuse. If any of the reviewers selected by the Board corresponds to the list of ‘reviewers to be excluded’ presented by the contributor, the Board shall exclude them in the selection of reviewers. In the case where none of the reviewers corresponds to the list of ‘reviewers to be excluded’, those who are selected by the Board are appointed as reviewers.
3. Each paper submitted shall be given to at least two undisclosed reviewers to be evaluated. Only when two or more reviewers decide to accept the paper, either unconditionally or upon condition of revision, shall the paper be published based upon the final decision by the Board. The rating scale is as follows:Publish: 90 points or higher; Publish after revision (minor revision): 70 to less than 90 points; Re-review after revision (major revision): 60 to less than 70 points; Reject publication: less than 60 points
4. The paper rated as “publish after revision” shall be re-submitted after revising the paper by taking into account reviewers’ comments along with a revision response letter. The paper rated as “re-review after revision” shall be re-submitted to the Editorial Board with a revised manuscript and written responses to reviewers’ comments by a deadline set by the Editorial Board, and the contributor shall put forth a request for re-review. If the result of the re-review is “re-review after revision” again, the paper will be treated as unpublishable. It should be noted that re-review may not be offered in consideration of the review results of all contributors and the submission to publication ratio. In this case, the contributor may re-submit the revised manuscript to the next issue of this journal after taking account of all comments by the reviewers. The paper rated as “reject publication” may be re-submitted for publication in the next issue of this journal after revision.
5. Each reviewer shall evaluate the papers following the guidelines for filling out an evaluation form included in the request form for review. He or she shall describe in detail the grounds for his or her evaluation.
6. The results of the evaluation shall be notified to the authors immediately by the Institute under its name.
7. In the case where the author disagrees with the evaluation results, they may submit an “application for appeal” and publication shall be determined through discussions by the Board.
8. Abstracts in English shall be published only when the editors appointed by the Institute have reviewed them.

1. Submitted papers shall be evaluated in a fair and strict manner with the following criteria.
   1. ① Originality: The contents and subject of the paper must be new and original, not having been published elsewhere either domestically or abroad.
   2. ② Logic: The composition and flow of the paper must be logical and clear.
   3. ③ Appropriacy: The paper must contain creative and new critique, analysis and proposal regarding the field of research on translation and interpreting, be appropriate for the research methods and in accordance with the submission rules.
   4. ④ Academic contribution: The paper must be able to contribute to guiding and developing the research on translation and interpreting.
2. An abstract in English submitted to the journal is largely evaluated based on basic quality as an English text, content quality, and format quality. Detailed criteria for evaluation are as follows:
   1. ① Basic quality as an English text: Conformity to grammatical rules, idiomatic English usage, adoption of appropriate English academic terms, and coherence and cohesion of the English text
   2. ② Content quality: Appropriateness of the paper title in English, whether the abstract describes the gist of the paper in a compressed manner without omission, and whether research findings are precisely stated rather than simply describing the background of research
   3. ③ Format quality: Conformity to a specific format specified by the journal including English font, text size, and spacing, the number of keywords and format conformity, and conformity to a word limit for the abstract in English

1. For the purpose of disseminating T&I research results and encouraging research efforts by young researchers, book reviews and PhD thesis abstracts may be published in the journal without being subjected to any official review process.

These provisions are the publication rules for the Institute's journal, ｢T&I Review｣.

These provisions determine the publication process of the Institute's journal, ｢T&I Review｣and regulate related tasks.

｢T&I Review｣is published once annually on 30 June, but the number of publication can be increased depending on need.

The publisher of the journal ｢T&I Review｣shall be the president of the Institute.

Submitted papers shall not be returned regardless of whether they have been published or not. Copyrights to the articles published in this journal are shared by the author and the Institute. Copyrights include the right of reproduction and the right of transmission. Therefore, should anyone intend to republish the paper in its entirety or in part, he or she should obtain the consent of the author and the Institute in advance.

The format of the journal is as follows.

1. On the front cover of the journal, the title should be stated in Korean and in English. The issue number, publishing entity and its logo, the date and the month and year of publication and the ISSN should also be marked.
2. The journal must contain a table of contents, a list of keywords, academic papers, guidelines for papers (Bylaws of the Editorial Board and for Peer Review, submission rules, academic research ethic rules) and the list of editors.
3. At the end of each published paper, the date of contribution, the date of submission of an amended version after notification of evaluation results and the date of acceptance should be stated.

1. Author's responsibilities: The ultimate responsibility for any issues that occurred while writing the paper lies with the author. The evaluation is to be done anonymously so any personal information of the author should not be revealed.
2. Reviewer's responsibilities: The reviewer needs to put forth a judgment on the academic value of the paper being reviewed along with the evidence for such judgment, as well as point out any errors or issues and suggest points of improvements. When needed, the reviewer can consult other experts for advice. The Board and the reviewer acknowledges the author's copyrights on the paper and cannot use the paper in its entirety or in part without the consent of the author in advance. Also, when evaluating a paper, the reviewer shall not make any personal attacks on the author or use insulting expressions.