Author Guidelines

KJAI welcomes submissions of original research articles and review papers that fall within the journal's aims and scope. Manuscripts must present original, unpublished work that is not under consideration by any other journal or publication. A preprint posted to arXiv or an institutional repository does not count as prior publication; declare it in your covering letter.

LaTeX submissions only

The journal accepts manuscripts prepared in LaTeX only. Microsoft Word, ODT and Google Docs files are not accepted and will be returned without review.

This is not a preference — it is what allows the journal to typeset mathematics, pseudocode, code listings and numbered cross-references reliably, and to produce a consistent reference list. Use the journal's official LaTeX template; it does all of this for you and compiles as it stands.

Manuscript Requirements

ElementRequirement
FormatLaTeX only. Submit both the .tex source and the compiled .pdf.
TemplateThe official KJAI template. Do not alter the style block in Section 8 of the file.
EnginepdfLaTeX, XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX — the template detects which and adjusts.
Page setupA4, 11 pt, single column — set by the template.
AnonymityKeep \anonymoustrue. The manuscript must not name you anywhere, including in the file properties, the acknowledgements, and any link to your own repository. Use an anonymised link during review.
Title pageA separate file with authors, affiliations, ORCIDs, CRediT contributions, funding, conflicts and ethics approval. Never sent to reviewers.
Abstract150–250 words, no citations. Name the application domain in the first sentence.
KeywordsFive, separated by semicolons.
ReferencesNumbered style via biblatex (numeric-comp), processed by Biber. Include DOIs and arXiv identifiers where they exist.
AlgorithmsPseudocode in the algorithm / algpseudocode environments supplied. Complete enough to reimplement.
Code listingsShort, illustrative fragments only, using the lstlisting style supplied. Full code belongs in a repository.
Tablesbooktabs style: three horizontal rules, no vertical rules. Caption above.
FiguresVector PDF where possible, otherwise 300 dpi minimum. Axes labelled with units. Caption below.
EquationsNumbered if referred to; every symbol defined immediately after.
ResultsReport uncertainty, the number of runs, and what the interval means. A single point estimate from a single seed is not a result.
DeclarationsCode and data availability, generative AI use, ethics approval, funding, conflicts, and compute footprint — all six required, including a statement that none applies.
Reproducibility checklistAppendix A of the template. Required for every research article; every line answered.

Manuscript Types

SectionLengthReview
Research Article6,000–8,000 wordsDouble-blind peer review
Applied Study or Case Report4,000–6,000 wordsDouble-blind peer review
Systems, Dataset & Resource Paper3,000–5,000 wordsDouble-blind peer review
Short Communication2,000–3,500 wordsDouble-blind peer review
Review or Survey6,000–10,000 wordsDouble-blind peer review
Book, Tool & Dataset Review1,000–1,500 wordsEditorial review
Word counts exclude references and appendices. Name your chosen section in the covering email and in the template's \papersection field. If you are unsure which section fits, say so and an editor will place it.

Replications and negative results

A careful replication, a failed reproduction, or a well-executed study showing that a plausible approach does not work is a Research Article like any other, reviewed against the same standards. What matters is whether the study was designed well enough that its negative result is informative — not whether the number went up.

Reporting standards

These are the things that most often send a manuscript back for revision, and they are worth checking before you submit rather than after.
  • Report uncertainty. State how many runs, how many seeds, and what your error bars mean. A difference of 0.3 points with no interval is not evidence.
  • Tune the baselines. Give competing methods a comparable search budget, and say what budget each received. If you used published numbers rather than rerunning, say so.
  • Describe the split. Random, temporal, by site, by subject — for applied work this usually matters more than the model does.
  • Separate the test set from the decisions. Say when you looked at it, and how often.
  • Report the full search. If you tried forty configurations and report four, the reader needs to know that.
  • Name every dataset properly — version, size, licence, provenance, and any preprocessing that changed what it contains.
  • State the compute. GPU-hours and hardware type, including failed runs where you can estimate them.
  • Be exact in the claims. The abstract should not say anything the results section does not demonstrate.

Generative AI in your manuscript

Declare it, and stay responsible for it

You may use generative AI tools in preparing a manuscript. You must declare what you used and what for, in the Declarations block — language polishing counts. An AI system cannot be an author, cannot be credited as one, and cannot be responsible for anything: you are.

Where a generative model is part of the method rather than part of the writing process, it belongs in the Method section too, with the version, the settings, the prompts or a representative sample of them, and the date it was accessed. Model behaviour changes; a result obtained from a hosted model is only interpretable if the reader knows which one, and when.

What is not acceptable: fabricated or unverified citations, results or text presented as your own analysis when a model produced them without your checking, and manuscripts in which a generative model is used as an unexamined black box with no evaluation of what it produced. All three are grounds for rejection at screening.

Code and data

Every research article needs a code and data availability statement. Where either cannot be released — commercial restriction, patient confidentiality, a licence that forbids redistribution — the statement must say so and say why. Silence is not an acceptable answer, and a manuscript whose results could not in principle be checked by anyone is unlikely to survive review.
Deposit artefacts in an archive that issues a persistent identifier — Zenodo, figshare, an institutional repository, or a recognised domain archive — and cite that identifier in the article. A link to a personal account is not preservation. During double-blind review, use an anonymised repository link; replace it with the real one at acceptance.

Authors connected to The Korean Academy

Students and alumni are welcome to submit

If you are a student, alumnus, teacher or member of staff of The Korean Academy, you may submit your manuscript to this journal and we would be glad to read it. Declare the connection on your title page — it does not count against you.

Your manuscript is then handled by an independent editor with no connection to you, who chooses the reviewers and takes the decision alone. It receives the same double-blind review as every other submission, against the same standards.

Acceptance depends entirely on the outcome of that review. Being a KORA student does not make publication more likely, and it does not make it less likely. Nor is anyone required or expected to publish here: if your studies include a research project, you are free to submit it to any journal you think suitable, or to none.

Language

Manuscripts are accepted in English. We do not reject work for imperfect English, but we do return work whose argument cannot be followed. If English is not your first language and you would like the copy-editing stage to take that into account, say so in your covering letter — it changes how we read the draft, not whether we accept it.

LaTeX Template

Every KJAI manuscript is written in the journal's official LaTeX template. It is a single self-contained file — no class file, no separate bibliography to hunt for — and it compiles as it stands, so you can see the finished layout before you have written a word.
Page 1, as the template typesets it — masthead, title block, anonymised author line, abstract and keywords
Pseudocode, a booktabs table and a numbered equation, as typeset

Download the template

Download the file below, or copy the complete source and paste it into a new file named kjai-article.tex — or straight into a blank Overleaf project.
TEX kjai-article-template.texVersion 1.0 (2026) · single file · compiles out of the box
Download .tex template

What the template gives you

Any engine

Detects pdfLaTeX, XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX with iftex and loads the right font setup, so the file compiles wherever you open it.

A one-line anonymity switch

\anonymoustrue hides every author detail for double-blind review; flip it to \anonymousfalse for your own copy.

Pseudocode that reads well

A worked algorithm float using algpseudocode, with numbered lines, a caption and cross-referencing already set up.

Code listings in house style

A configured listings style with line numbers, syntax colour in the journal's palette, and sensible line breaking.

Tables, figures and subfigures

Already set in the journal's style, with captions in the right place and a worked example of each — including a results table with uncertainty.

Mathematics and theorems

amsmath, numbered and aligned equations, cross-referencing, and theorem, proposition and definition environments.

Numbered references

biblatex with numeric-comp and Biber, DOIs and arXiv identifiers switched on, and four sample entries so the file compiles before you add your own.

The declarations block

All six declarations the journal requires, with the wording for each — including code and data availability, generative AI use, and compute footprint.

The reproducibility checklist

Appendix A, as a table you fill in. Required for every research article, and the fastest way to find out what your draft is still missing.

Instructions in the file itself

Every section explains what belongs in it, in the voice of the guidelines on this page. Delete the guidance as you write.

How to compile

On Overleaf — the easiest route.
  1. Create a blank project and paste the source into main.tex.
  2. Open Menu → Compiler and choose pdfLaTeX (XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX also work).
  3. Under Menu → TeX Live version, select 2023 or later.
  4. Press Recompile. The bibliography is written automatically on the first run.
On your own machine — TeX Live 2023 or later, then:
pdflatex kjai-articlebiber kjai-articlepdflatex kjai-articlepdflatex kjai-article
References are processed with Biber, not BibTeX — if your references come out as bold question marks, that is almost always the reason. The template writes its sample .bib file itself using filecontents, so the first compile works with nothing else in the folder; replace those entries with your own.
kjai-article-template.tex 616 lines · press Copy above, then save as a .tex file
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%
%%  KORA JOURNAL OF APPLIED AI & MULTIDISCIPLINARY STUDIES  (KJAI)
%%  코라 응용 인공지능 및 다학제 연구 저널
%%  Official manuscript template  --  Version 1.0  (2026)
%%  Published by The Korean Academy
%%
%%  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  HOW TO COMPILE
%%  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  This file compiles with pdfLaTeX, XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX.  References are
%%  processed with Biber, not BibTeX.
%%
%%      pdflatex  kjai-article
%%      biber     kjai-article
%%      pdflatex  kjai-article
%%      pdflatex  kjai-article
%%
%%  On Overleaf:  Menu -> Compiler -> pdfLaTeX,  Menu -> TeX Live version 2023+.
%%
%%  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  BEFORE YOU SUBMIT  --  four things
%%  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  1. Keep  \anonymoustrue  below.  KJAI uses double-blind peer review, so the
%%     manuscript you upload must not name you anywhere -- including in URLs to
%%     your own repository.  Use an anonymised link during review.
%%  2. Send the separate title page as its own file. It is the only document
%%     that identifies you.
%%  3. Complete the DECLARATIONS block and the REPRODUCIBILITY CHECKLIST in
%%     Appendix A.  A research article without both is returned at screening.
%%  4. Send BOTH the .tex source and the compiled .pdf to
%%     admission@thekoreanacad.com  with the subject line
%%     KJAI - [Section] - [Short title]
%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}

%%=============================================================================
%%  1.  ANONYMITY SWITCH   --  leave TRUE for submission, FALSE for your own copy
%%=============================================================================
\newif\ifanonymous
\anonymoustrue          % <<< TRUE  = author details hidden (submission version)
%\anonymousfalse        % <<< FALSE = author details shown  (your own records)

%%=============================================================================
%%  2.  PAGE GEOMETRY
%%=============================================================================
\usepackage[a4paper,top=2.7cm,bottom=2.7cm,left=3.1cm,right=3.1cm,
            headheight=14pt,footskip=1.2cm]{geometry}

%%=============================================================================
%%  3.  ENGINE AND FONTS  --  works under pdfLaTeX, XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX
%%=============================================================================
\usepackage{iftex}
\ifPDFTeX
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
  \usepackage{lmodern}
\else
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \IfFontExistsTF{Libertinus Serif}
    {\setmainfont{Libertinus Serif}[Ligatures=TeX]}
    {\IfFontExistsTF{TeX Gyre Pagella}
       {\setmainfont{TeX Gyre Pagella}[Ligatures=TeX]}
       {}}
\fi
\usepackage{microtype}

%%=============================================================================
%%  4.  PACKAGES
%%=============================================================================
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}   % mathematics
\usepackage{graphicx}                 % figures
\usepackage{booktabs}                 % professional tables -- no vertical rules
\usepackage{longtable}                % tables that break across pages
\usepackage{tabularx}                 % tables that fill the text width
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{algorithm}                % floating algorithm environment
\usepackage{algpseudocode}            % pseudocode inside it
\usepackage{listings}                 % source-code listings
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[hidelinks,breaklinks=true]{hyperref}

%%=============================================================================
%%  5.  REFERENCES  --  numbered, compressed ranges, processed with Biber
%%=============================================================================
\usepackage[style=numeric-comp,sorting=none,backend=biber,
            giveninits=true,maxbibnames=12,minbibnames=10,
            doi=true,url=true,isbn=false,eprint=true]{biblatex}

% The example bibliography below is written out automatically, so this file
% compiles on its own. Replace these entries with your own.
\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{kjai-refs.bib}
@article{vaswani2017,
  author  = {Vaswani, Ashish and Shazeer, Noam and Parmar, Niki},
  title   = {Attention is all you need},
  journal = {Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
  year    = {2017},
  volume  = {30},
  pages   = {5998--6008}
}
@book{murphy2022,
  author    = {Murphy, Kevin P.},
  title     = {Probabilistic Machine Learning: An Introduction},
  year      = {2022},
  publisher = {MIT Press},
  address   = {Cambridge, MA}
}
@incollection{mitchell2019,
  author    = {Mitchell, Margaret and Wu, Simone and Zaldivar, Andrew},
  title     = {Model cards for model reporting},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency},
  pages     = {220--229},
  year      = {2019},
  publisher = {ACM},
  address   = {New York, NY}
}
@misc{dataset2025,
  author       = {{Anonymous Consortium}},
  title        = {A worked example dataset for applied {AI} reporting},
  year         = {2025},
  howpublished = {Zenodo},
  note         = {Persistent identifier: 10.xxxx/zenodo.xxxxxxx}
}
\end{filecontents}

\addbibresource{kjai-refs.bib}

%%=============================================================================
%%  6.  JOURNAL IDENTITY  --  do not change
%%=============================================================================
\definecolor{kjaiblue}{HTML}{1565A8}
\definecolor{kjaisky}{HTML}{56B5FE}
\definecolor{kjaigrey}{HTML}{54657A}
\definecolor{kjaipale}{HTML}{EAF4FE}

\newcommand{\journalname}{KORA Journal of Applied AI \& Multidisciplinary Studies}
\newcommand{\journalshort}{KJAI}
\newcommand{\volumeinfo}{Volume 1, Number 1 (December 2026)}

%%=============================================================================
%%  7.  MANUSCRIPT METADATA  --  fill these in
%%=============================================================================
\newcommand{\papertitle}{Calibrated Risk Prediction Under Distribution Shift:\\
                         Evidence from a Multi-Site Clinical Deployment}
\newcommand{\papersection}{Research Article}   % see the six sections below
\newcommand{\runningtitle}{Calibrated Risk Prediction Under Distribution Shift}

% Author details -- shown only when \anonymousfalse
\newcommand{\authorlist}{Given Name Family Name\textsuperscript{1} \and
                         Given Name Family Name\textsuperscript{2}}
\newcommand{\affiliations}{%
  \textsuperscript{1}Department, Institution, City, Country\\
  \textsuperscript{2}Department, Institution, City, Country}
\newcommand{\correspondence}{name@institution.edu}

%%=============================================================================
%%  8.  STYLE  --  headings, running heads, captions, listings.  Leave this alone.
%%=============================================================================
\titleformat{\section}{\normalfont\large\bfseries\color{kjaiblue}}{\thesection}{0.8em}{}
\titleformat{\subsection}{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}{\thesubsection}{0.7em}{}
\titleformat{\subsubsection}{\normalfont\normalsize\itshape}{\thesubsubsection}{0.7em}{}
\titlespacing*{\section}{0pt}{2.2ex plus 1ex minus .2ex}{1.1ex plus .2ex}
\titlespacing*{\subsection}{0pt}{1.8ex plus 1ex minus .2ex}{0.9ex plus .2ex}

\captionsetup{font=small,labelfont={bf,color=kjaiblue},labelsep=period,
              justification=justified,singlelinecheck=false}

\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyhf{}
\fancyhead[LE]{\footnotesize\color{kjaigrey}\journalshort}
\fancyhead[RO]{\footnotesize\color{kjaigrey}\runningtitle}
\fancyfoot[C]{\footnotesize\thepage}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0.4pt}
\renewcommand{\headrule}{\hbox to\headwidth{\color{kjaisky}\leaders\hrule height \headrulewidth\hfill}}

\fancypagestyle{firstpage}{%
  \fancyhf{}
  \fancyhead[C]{}
  \fancyfoot[C]{\footnotesize\thepage}
  \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\setlength{\emergencystretch}{2.5em}
\setlength{\parindent}{1.4em}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\linespread{1.12}

% Abstract block
\newenvironment{kjaiabstract}[1]
  {\par\vspace{1.2em}\noindent\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
   \color{kjaiblue}\footnotesize\bfseries\MakeUppercase{#1}\par\vspace{0.4em}
   \color{black}\normalfont\small\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}}
  {\end{minipage}\par\vspace{0.6em}}

\newcommand{\keywords}[1]{\par\vspace{0.5em}\noindent
  \begingroup\sloppy\raggedright\small
  \textbf{\color{kjaiblue}Keywords:} #1\par\endgroup}

% Source-code listings
\lstdefinestyle{kjai}{
  basicstyle=\ttfamily\footnotesize,
  keywordstyle=\color{kjaiblue}\bfseries,
  commentstyle=\color{kjaigrey}\itshape,
  stringstyle=\color{teal},
  numbers=left, numberstyle=\tiny\color{kjaigrey}, numbersep=8pt,
  frame=single, rulecolor=\color{kjaisky},
  backgroundcolor=\color{kjaipale},
  breaklines=true, breakatwhitespace=true,
  showstringspaces=false, captionpos=b, xleftmargin=16pt,
}
\lstset{style=kjai}

\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

%%=============================================================================
\begin{document}
%%=============================================================================
\thispagestyle{firstpage}

%%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  TITLE BLOCK  --  generated automatically
%%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{center}
  {\footnotesize\color{kjaigrey}\scshape \journalname\\[0.15em]
   \volumeinfo}\\[0.5em]
  {\color{kjaisky}\rule{\textwidth}{1pt}}\\[1.4em]

  {\LARGE\bfseries\color{kjaiblue} \papertitle \par}
  \vspace{1.2em}

  \ifanonymous
    {\itshape\color{kjaigrey} Author details removed for double-blind peer review}
  \else
    {\large \authorlist \par}
    \vspace{0.6em}
    {\small\color{kjaigrey} \affiliations \par}
    \vspace{0.4em}
    {\footnotesize Correspondence: \href{mailto:\correspondence}{\correspondence}}
  \fi

  \vspace{0.8em}
  {\footnotesize\color{kjaigrey}\textsc{\papersection}}\\[0.6em]
  {\color{kjaisky}\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}}
\end{center}

%%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  ABSTRACT  --  150-250 words, no citations, no undefined abbreviations
%%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{kjaiabstract}{Abstract}
State the problem, the data, the method, the main quantitative finding, and why it
matters --- in that order. Report the headline result with its uncertainty, not as a
bare point estimate. Do not cite anything here, and do not use an abbreviation that
has not been spelled out. Aim for 150 to 250 words. A good abstract can be read on its
own and still make sense; a reader who never opens the article should come away knowing
what you found, on what data, and how confident you are.

If your paper applies AI to a domain, say which domain in the first sentence. A reader
scanning this journal is deciding whether your work speaks to their field, and the
abstract is where they decide.
\end{kjaiabstract}

\keywords{applied machine learning; distribution shift; calibration; clinical decision
support; model evaluation}

\vspace{0.6em}
\noindent{\color{kjaisky}\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}}
\vspace{0.8em}

%%=============================================================================
%%  BODY OF THE ARTICLE
%%=============================================================================

\section{Introduction}

Open with the question this article answers. Say what is already known, name the gap
your work fills, and close the section with your specific aim, research questions or
hypotheses. Cite as you go \cite{vaswani2017,murphy2022}.

Because KJAI is a cross-domain journal, write the introduction for two readers at once:
someone who knows the method but not your domain, and someone who knows the domain but
not the method. Define the domain problem in plain terms before you formalise it.

Word limits, excluding references and appendices, are: Research Article 6{,}000--8{,}000;
Applied Study or Case Report 4{,}000--6{,}000; Systems, Dataset or Resource Paper
3{,}000--5{,}000; Short Communication 2{,}000--3{,}500; Review or Survey 6{,}000--10{,}000;
Book, Tool or Dataset Review 1{,}000--1{,}500. Name your section on the title page and in
\verb|\papersection| above.

\subsection{Contributions}

State your contributions explicitly, as a short list. Claim only what the paper
demonstrates.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=2pt,topsep=4pt]
  \item A method, stated precisely enough to be reimplemented.
  \item An evaluation on named data, with the comparison that makes the result meaningful.
  \item An analysis of when the method fails, which is usually the most useful part.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Related Work}

Review only the work your argument actually rests on. A related-work section is an
argument about the state of a field, not an inventory of it. Group by idea rather than
by year, and end each group by saying what it leaves unresolved.

\section{Method}

\subsection{Problem formulation}

Give the formal setting before the algorithm. Define your notation once, in one place,
and use it consistently. Let $\mathcal{D} = \{(x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^{n}$ be a dataset of
$n$ examples drawn from a distribution $P(X, Y)$, and let $f_\theta : \mathcal{X} \to
\mathcal{Y}$ denote a model with parameters $\theta$.

\begin{definition}[Calibration error]
For a model producing probability estimates $\hat{p}$, the expected calibration error is
the average absolute gap between confidence and accuracy across $M$ equal-width bins.
\end{definition}

\subsection{Algorithm}

Present the procedure as pseudocode. It should be complete enough that a competent
reader could implement it without guessing, and short enough that they will read it.

\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{Recalibration under covariate shift}
\label{alg:recal}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Source data $\mathcal{D}_s$, unlabelled target data $\mathcal{D}_t$, model $f_\theta$
\Ensure Recalibrated model $f_{\theta'}$
  \State $w \gets \textsc{EstimateImportanceWeights}(\mathcal{D}_s, \mathcal{D}_t)$
  \State $\mathcal{D}_v \gets \textsc{WeightedSplit}(\mathcal{D}_s, w, \text{frac}=0.2)$
  \For{$T$ in candidate temperatures}
    \State $\ell_T \gets \textsc{WeightedNLL}(f_{\theta}, \mathcal{D}_v, T, w)$
  \EndFor
  \State $T^{*} \gets \arg\min_T \ell_T$
  \State \Return $f_{\theta'}$ with logits scaled by $1/T^{*}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

Refer to the algorithm by number in the text, as in Algorithm~\ref{alg:recal}. State its
computational complexity and any assumption it relies on --- here, that the support of
the target distribution is contained in that of the source.

\subsection{Implementation}

Where a short code fragment communicates something prose cannot, include it. Do not
paste an entire codebase into the article; put that in the repository and cite it.

\begin{lstlisting}[language=Python,caption={Weighted temperature scaling, abridged.},label={lst:temp}]
def weighted_temperature(logits, labels, weights, grid):
    """Return the temperature minimising weighted NLL on a held-out split."""
    best_t, best_loss = 1.0, float("inf")
    for t in grid:
        loss = weighted_nll(logits / t, labels, weights)
        if loss < best_loss:
            best_t, best_loss = t, loss
    return best_t
\end{lstlisting}

\section{Experimental Setup}

This section exists so that someone else can repeat your work. Be specific.

\subsection{Data}

Name every dataset, its version or release date, its size, its licence, and how it was
obtained \cite{dataset2025}. State the split strategy and whether the split is random,
temporal or by site --- for applied work the difference usually matters more than the
model does. Where data concerns people, state the consent basis and the approving ethics
body here in a form that does not identify you; the full statement with names and
reference numbers goes on the separate title page.

\subsection{Baselines and comparisons}

A result without a baseline is not a result. Say which baselines you compare against,
why those, and whether you tuned them with the same budget you gave your own method. If
you did not, say so.

\subsection{Training and hyperparameters}

Report the optimiser, learning-rate schedule, batch size, number of epochs, early-stopping
criterion, hardware, framework versions, random seeds and the number of repeated runs.
A table is usually the clearest way to do this. Report the compute used, in GPU-hours or
equivalent, and where the search space was larger than the results table suggests, report
the full search.

\subsection{Evaluation metrics}

Define every metric, including the ones you think are obvious --- ``accuracy'' is
ambiguous the moment classes are imbalanced. Say what uncertainty you report (standard
deviation over seeds, bootstrap confidence interval, or an analytic interval) and how
many runs it summarises.

\section{Results}

\subsection{Main results}

Tables use \texttt{booktabs}: three horizontal rules, never a vertical one. The caption
goes \emph{above} the table. Refer to every table in the text before it appears ---
see Table~\ref{tab:main}.

\begin{table}[htbp]
  \centering
  \caption{Performance across three deployment sites. Mean over five seeds, with standard
           deviation. ECE is expected calibration error (lower is better).}
  \label{tab:main}
  \small
  \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}lXrrr@{}}
    \toprule
    Method & Setting & AUROC & ECE & Brier \\
    \midrule
    Baseline           & Source site only            & .871\,(.006) & .094\,(.011) & .118\,(.004) \\
    Baseline           & Transferred, no adaptation  & .804\,(.014) & .173\,(.022) & .162\,(.009) \\
    Temperature scaling& Transferred                 & .804\,(.014) & .081\,(.013) & .139\,(.006) \\
    \textbf{This work} & Transferred, weighted       & \textbf{.812\,(.011)} & \textbf{.038\,(.007)} & \textbf{.127\,(.005)} \\
    \midrule
    \multicolumn{2}{@{}l}{\textit{Oracle (target labels used)}} & \textit{.829} & \textit{.021} & \textit{.119} \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabularx}
  \par\vspace{0.4em}
  {\footnotesize\textit{Note.} $N = 24{,}118$ encounters across three sites. Bold marks the best
  non-oracle result in each column. Discrimination is largely unchanged; the gain is in calibration.}
\end{table}

Say in the text what the table shows, and be honest about what it does not. Here,
discrimination did not improve --- writing ``our method improves performance'' would be
a misreading of the authors' own result.

A table that runs over a page break should use \texttt{longtable}. Keep tables readable
in black and white: do not encode anything in colour alone.

\subsection{Figures}

The caption goes \emph{below} the figure. Supply figures as vector PDF where possible, or
at a minimum 300\,dpi for photographs and screenshots. Label axes, give units, and make
the figure legible at the size it will actually be printed. Refer to each one in the text
before it appears, as in Figure~\ref{fig:example}.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  % Replace the framed box below with your own figure:
  % \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{myfigure.pdf}
  \fbox{\begin{minipage}[c][4.5cm][c]{0.8\textwidth}\centering
    \color{kjaigrey}\itshape Replace this box with \texttt{\textbackslash includegraphics}
  \end{minipage}}
  \caption{A short declarative caption that says what the reader should see, not merely
           what the figure is called.}
  \label{fig:example}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Ablations and sensitivity}

Show which parts of the method are doing the work. An ablation that changes nothing is
worth reporting --- it tells the reader what to leave out.

\subsection{Equations}

Set short expressions in line, such as $p < .05$ or $\mathcal{L}(\theta)$. Display and
number anything you refer to later:

\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:ece}
  \mathrm{ECE} = \sum_{m=1}^{M} \frac{|B_m|}{n}\,\bigl|\,\mathrm{acc}(B_m) - \mathrm{conf}(B_m)\,\bigr|
\end{equation}

\noindent where $B_m$ is the set of examples falling in the $m$-th confidence bin, $n$ the
total number of examples, and $\mathrm{acc}(\cdot)$ and $\mathrm{conf}(\cdot)$ the accuracy
and mean confidence within a bin. Always define every symbol immediately after the equation.
Refer back to it by number, as in Equation~\eqref{eq:ece}.

Multi-line derivations use \texttt{align}, with alignment on the relation:

\begin{align}
  \mathcal{L}(\theta) &= -\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i \log p_\theta(y_i \mid x_i) \label{eq:loss}\\
                      &\quad + \lambda \lVert \theta \rVert_2^2 \nonumber
\end{align}

Use \verb|\nonumber| on lines you will not cite.

\section{Discussion}

Say what the findings mean, how they answer the question in Section 1, and --- just as
importantly --- what they do not show. Distinguish what your evidence supports from what
you believe. If your result is smaller than you hoped, say so; a paper that reports a
modest effect honestly is more useful than one that oversells a large one.

\subsection{Implications for practice}

For an applied paper, this is often the section a domain reader turns to first. What
should someone in the field do differently, if anything, and under what conditions?

\section{Limitations}

Every study has them. Naming yours strengthens the article; hiding them invites a
reviewer to name them for you. Cover at least: the scope of the data, the generality of
the setting, the assumptions the method depends on, and the failure modes you observed.

\section{Broader Impact and Ethical Considerations}

Applied AI is deployed on people. State the foreseeable consequences of this work being
used, including the ones you would rather not think about: who is affected by a false
positive, who by a false negative, and whether those two populations are the same. If a
misuse is plausible, name it, and say what in the design makes it harder. If you believe
the risks are negligible, say that and say why --- do not leave the section out.

\section{Conclusion}

Short. What is now known that was not known before, and what should be done next.

%%=============================================================================
%%  DECLARATIONS  --  all six are required. Keep the headings.
%%=============================================================================
\section*{Declarations}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Declarations}
\small

\noindent\textbf{Code and data availability.}
State where the code and the data can be found, with a persistent identifier, or explain
precisely why they cannot be shared. ``The clinical dataset cannot be released because
consent was given for use within the treating institution only; the analysis code is at
[anonymised link during review]'' is a perfectly acceptable answer. Silence is not.

\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Generative AI use.}
Name the tool, the version, and what it was used for --- or write ``No generative AI tools
were used in the preparation of this manuscript.'' Language polishing counts and must be
declared. Where a generative model is part of the method rather than the writing process,
describe it in the Method section as well. AI cannot be listed as an author, and the
authors remain responsible for every statement in the paper.

\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Ethics approval and consent.}
Give the approving body and reference number, or state why approval was not required.
Confirm that no participant is identifiable in this article.

\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Funding.}
Name every funder and grant number, or state that the work received no specific funding.

\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Conflicts of interest.}
In the submission version write: ``Declared on the title page.'' This file must stay
anonymous.

\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Compute and environmental footprint.}
Report the total compute used for the work as finally reported, including failed runs
where you can estimate them, in GPU-hours or equivalent, with the hardware type. Where
you can, state the region or provider, which determines the carbon intensity.

\normalsize

%%=============================================================================
%%  REFERENCES
%%=============================================================================
\printbibliography[title={References}]

%%=============================================================================
%%  APPENDICES
%%=============================================================================
\appendix

\section{Reproducibility Checklist}
\small
Answer every line. ``No'' is an acceptable answer with a reason; a blank is not.

\begin{tabular}{@{}p{0.72\textwidth}l@{}}
  \toprule
  Item & Answer \\
  \midrule
  All claims in the abstract and introduction are supported by the results & Yes / No \\
  The setting, assumptions and limitations of the method are stated        & Yes / No \\
  Every dataset is named, with version, size, licence and provenance       & Yes / No \\
  The train/validation/test split strategy is stated                       & Yes / No \\
  All hyperparameters and the search space are reported                    & Yes / No \\
  The number of runs and the definition of reported uncertainty are stated & Yes / No \\
  Hardware, framework versions and total compute are reported              & Yes / No \\
  Code is available, or its unavailability is explained                    & Yes / No \\
  Data is available, or its unavailability is explained                    & Yes / No \\
  Baselines received a comparable tuning budget                            & Yes / No \\
  Ethics approval and consent are stated where human data is used          & Yes / No / N/A \\
  Use of generative AI is declared                                         & Yes / No \\
  Foreseeable misuse and differential harms are discussed                  & Yes / No \\
  \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\normalsize

\section{Additional Results}
Extended tables, further ablations, hyperparameter grids and full search results go here.

\section{Notation}
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}ll@{\hspace{2.5em}}ll@{}}
  $\mathcal{D}$   & dataset                & $f_\theta$ & model with parameters $\theta$ \\
  $x_i, y_i$      & input and label        & $w_i$      & importance weight of example $i$ \\
  $P(X,Y)$        & data distribution      & $T$        & calibration temperature \\
  $B_m$           & $m$-th confidence bin  & $\lambda$  & regularisation coefficient \\
\end{tabular}
\normalsize

\end{document}

Submission Process

Email submission · OJS platform coming
KJAI will move to an Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, where authors will submit, track and revise manuscripts through their own account. That system is being prepared and will be announced here when it opens.
Until then, submissions are made by email. Nothing about the editorial process differs: manuscripts are logged, given an ID, screened, and sent to two independent reviewers exactly as they will be under OJS.

Send your manuscript to

Subject line: KJAI - [Section] - [Short title]
for example — KJAI - Research Article - Calibration under distribution shift

What to attach

  1. The anonymised manuscript — both .tex and compiled .pdf, with \anonymoustrue left in place.
  2. The title page, as a separate file. This is the only document that identifies you, and it is never shown to reviewers. It carries authors, affiliations, ORCID iDs, CRediT contribution statements, funding, conflicts and ethics approval.
  3. Figures, if any, as separate vector PDF or 300 dpi image files.
  4. The reproducibility checklist — Appendix A of the template, every line answered.
  5. An anonymised code or data link, where you are releasing artefacts. Replace it with the real identifier at acceptance.
  6. Your covering letter, pasted into the body of the email: what the paper does in three sentences, why KJAI, any preprint already posted, and confirmation that the work is original and not under review elsewhere.

After you send it

You will receive an acknowledgement with a manuscript ID in the form KJAI-2026-001 within one to two working days. Quote it in any correspondence. If you have heard nothing after three working days, write again — an email has gone astray, and we would rather hear from you twice than not at all.
Tracking is by email while we are on this system: write to the editorial office quoting your manuscript ID and you will get the actual status, not an automated one.

Preprints

Posting a preprint to arXiv or an institutional repository before or during review is fine and does not count as prior publication. Declare it in the covering letter with its identifier. Do not update the preprint with reviewer-suggested changes while the manuscript is under review — it de-anonymises the process. After publication, you may deposit the published version anywhere, immediately, without asking us.

Peer Review Process

All research submissions undergo double-blind peer review by two independent reviewers. Reviewers are not told who wrote the manuscript, and authors are never told who reviewed it. Reviewers are selected for expertise in the specific subject of the manuscript, not for availability.

One reviewer for the method, one for the domain

A cross-domain manuscript is normally sent to one methods reviewer and one domain reviewer, so that neither half of the paper is judged by someone guessing. Each is told which half they are being asked to assess, and asked to say explicitly where their competence ends. Where a manuscript needs a third opinion — a statistical review, a clinical review, an ethics review — the editor obtains one and tells you that it happened.

Indicative Timeline

StageWhat happensTimeline
Acknowledgement Manuscript logged and given an ID 1–2 working days
Editorial screening Scope, format, anonymity, declarations, reproducibility checklist and similarity are checked. You are told either that the manuscript has gone out to review, or that it has been desk rejected — with the reason. Within 3 days
Peer review Two independent reviewers complete a structured report 6–10 weeks
First decision Accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject — with both reports sent to you in full 8–12 weeks from submission
Revision You revise and return a point-by-point response 2–4 weeks (yours)
Final decision Major revisions go back to at least one original reviewer 2–3 weeks
Production Copyediting, typesetting and proofs, which you approve 2–3 weeks
Publication Open access, in the next scheduled issue June or December

The three-day rule

Within three days of submission you will know whether your manuscript has entered peer review or been desk rejected. A manuscript that is outside our scope, incomplete, not anonymised, missing its declarations or reproducibility checklist, or not in the journal's LaTeX template is returned at this stage rather than left waiting. We would rather disappoint you in three days than in three months.

What reviewers are asked

  • Are the claims supported by the evidence? Not whether the result is large, but whether it is demonstrated.
  • Is the method described well enough to reimplement?
  • Is the evaluation sound — baselines, splits, metrics, uncertainty, and the number of runs?
  • Is the domain grounding right, where a domain is involved, and would a specialist in it trust this?
  • Are code and data available, or is their unavailability explained?
  • Are the limitations, ethical considerations and foreseeable harms addressed honestly?

Decisions

  • Accept — publication in the next issue, subject to copyediting and your approval of the proofs.
  • Minor revisions — accepted in principle; the editor checks the revision. Normally 2 weeks.
  • Major revisions — resubmission invited and re-reviewed. An invitation to revise is not a promise of acceptance.
  • Reject — with the specific reason, and both reports in full, so the work is usable wherever it goes next.
  • Desk rejection — before review, within three days, with the reason stated.
These are targets rather than guarantees. When we are running late we say so. KJAI does not offer fast-track review, paid review, or a guaranteed publication date, and any message offering these in the journal's name is not from us.

Article Processing Charges

Payable only on acceptance

There is no submission fee. The Article Processing Charge is invoiced only after you receive notification that your manuscript has been accepted — nothing is payable while your work is under consideration, and a manuscript that is rejected or withdrawn is never charged for. There is no charge to read anything the journal publishes, now or in future.
ChargeAuthors in IndiaInternational authors
Submission feeNoneNone
Article Processing Charge
invoiced on acceptance only
₹2,000USD 30
Charge to readNoneNone
Colour figures and supplementary filesNoneNone
Withdrawal before publicationNoneNone
Rejected manuscriptsNoneNone

When the charge applies

  1. You submit. Nothing is payable, and nothing is asked of you.
  2. Editorial screening and peer review. Still nothing payable. No fee is mentioned, and the editors handling your manuscript are not told anything about payment.
  3. You receive notification of acceptance. This is the point at which the Article Processing Charge becomes due, and the invoice is raised — never before.
  4. You pay the APC and return the signed publishing agreement.
  5. Your article is published open access, free for anyone in the world to read.

Fees do not influence decisions

Payment of an Article Processing Charge does not guarantee acceptance or publication. Editorial decisions rest solely on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality and ethical compliance of the manuscript. No invoice is ever raised before an editorial decision to accept, and the editors handling a manuscript are not told whether a fee has been paid or waived. If your manuscript is rejected, you owe nothing — at any stage, for any reason.

Why there is a charge

KJAI charges nothing to read. Someone still has to pay for the work of turning a manuscript into a published article, and in an open-access journal that cost falls on the publication side rather than the reader's side. The Article Processing Charge is what covers it.
It is not a fee for acceptance, and it is not profit on a submission. It pays for the editorial administration behind every manuscript — logging and tracking it, running the similarity check, finding and briefing two qualified reviewers across two different fields, chasing reports, and keeping the records that publishing integrity requires — and then for the production work that follows acceptance: copy-editing, proofreading, checking references and identifiers, typesetting mathematics and code, and producing the final PDF and HTML. After publication it pays for hosting the article permanently, maintaining its metadata, and preserving it so it remains readable years from now.

What the charge covers

  • Editorial administration — logging, tracking and correspondence on every manuscript, and the record-keeping that publication ethics requires
  • Similarity screening before a manuscript goes to review
  • Managing peer review — identifying, briefing and following up two independent reviewers, often from two different fields
  • Copy-editing and proofreading, including checking references, DOIs and artefact identifiers against their sources
  • Typesetting and PDF production — preparing the final article PDF and HTML, with correct mathematics, pseudocode, listings, tables and figures
  • Hosting and metadata — a permanent article page with complete, machine-readable metadata
  • Long-term preservation — archival copies kept in more than one place so the work survives
  • Open access for every reader, everywhere, with no paywall and no charge to read
The journal is small and the charge is set to cover these costs rather than to generate a margin. If it ever needs to change, the change will be published here in full, with notice, before it takes effect.

Which rate applies

The rate is determined by the corresponding author's country of affiliation at the time of submission. Authors affiliated with an institution in India pay ₹2,000; all other authors pay USD 30 or the equivalent. Where a manuscript has authors in both categories, the corresponding author's rate applies to the article as a whole — there is one charge per article, never one per author.
The rate published on the day you submitted is the rate that applies to your article. Any future change to these charges will be published here in full, with notice, before it takes effect.

Waivers

A full or partial waiver is available to any author who genuinely cannot pay. Ask in your covering letter, or at any point before publication. No evidence of need is required and no justification beyond the request itself. Waivers are decided by the Managing Editor, who takes no part in the editorial decision, and a waiver request is never disclosed to the handling editor or the reviewers.

Payment and refunds

  • An invoice is issued by The Korean Academy on acceptance, with payment instructions and a due date.
  • The APC is refunded in full if the journal withdraws the article before publication, or retracts it for a reason attributable to the journal.
  • It is not refundable after publication.
  • An article whose invoice is unpaid is not published, but the acceptance stands and the editorial decision is not reversed.
  • Queries about an invoice go to the editorial office, quoting the invoice number.