Guideline for Reviewers

This guide for reviewers contains information regarding basic considerations that should be applied when reviewing a manuscript that has been submitted to the KjG. Peer reviewers will be asked to choose whether an appropriate course of action for the manuscript is “accept”, “minor revision”, “major revision” or “reject”. Reviewers should also alert the editors of any issues relating to any author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior. Publication of original articles is dependent primarily on their validity, as judged by peer reviewers and editors. The reviewers also will be asked whether the writing is comprehensible, and how interesting they consider the article to be. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers, unless they are out of scope or below the interest threshold of the KjG.

We would like to invite you, as an expert, to review a recommended manuscript. We appreciate your professional assistance in conducting a peer review of the manuscripts (a double-blind peer review). Please read the paper carefully and send us your comments in accordance with the guidelines below. In particular, please select one from the list provided for your recommendation regarding publication. This invitation reflects our view that you are an expert in your field; we hope you will consider it an academic honor.

Review Process of the KjG

All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed the same as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the decision process. Editors will not handle their own manuscripts although they are commissioned ones.

Review Guideline

Table of review guideline
To ensure that reviews are objective, online review guidelines are used to assess various elements, including the title, introduction, methods, results, discussion, organization, abstract, and references.

1	Title	Length and the substance of the title are both adequate.
2	Abstract	Abstract is structured of 250 words or less and states the purpose of the study, methods, results, and conclusion.
3	Introduction	Research objectives of the study are well-stated, specific, and significant.
4	Methods	Study design including sample selection and material choice is appropriate. Statistical method is pertinent to the study design.
5	Results	Results are clearly stated and are presented in logical sequence.
6	Discussion	The new and important aspects of the study are emphasized; the mechanism and/or possible explanation of the findings are well explored. The results are well compared or contrasted with other relevant studies. Implication of the study is well-presented.
7	Conclusion	Conclusion is clearly stated. Conclusion is adequately supported by the date, and follows the logic of the full study.
8	References	Style and format of the references meet the standards of the Journal. Numbers of citation are appropriate.
9	Tables	Information is displayed concisely and efficiently.
10	Figures/Illustrations	Images are high quality and the legends are clearly and simply stated. If any, please indicate figure(s)/photograph(s) that should be printed in colors.
11	Ethics	The authors noted the permission from the Ethical Committee or IRB, Ethics in the manuscript (only for original articles)

Additional considerations
The following are also considered when deciding whether to accept a submission or to recommend revisions:
① The topic of the manuscript is appropriate for the field of gastroenterology.
② The title represents the content of the paper.
③ The introduction, methods, and results are presented in the right order.
④ The method is described in sufficient detail.
⑤ Eligibility and exclusion criteria are clearly stated.
⑥ The research objective and results are coherent.
⑦ The table and results are coherent.
⑧ An appropriate statistical method is used.
⑨ The order of results corresponds to the discussion.
⑩ The conclusion can be deduced from the research results (there is no jumping to conclusions).
⑪ The research limitations are noted.
⑫ Are there any ethical problems?
⑬ Is there unnecessary repetition (in particular, repetition in the introduction and discussion, or discussion and results)?
⑭ Is the length of the manuscript appropriate?

Consider other internationally used guidelines such as CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials), QUORUM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses), and STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) for different research designs.

Obligations

Basic principles
Reviewers should approach the task of reviewing with sincerity, and submit their reviews in a timely fashion.
If the reviewer believes that he or she is not the appropriate person to review a particular article, he or she must immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Fairness
A reviewer should treat all authors fairly. If there is any conflict of interest, immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Confidentiality
Except when asking for advice in relation to a review, the manuscript and its content should not be disclosed to a third party. The manuscript cannot be cited before publication. The review process is double blind, which means that a reviewer cannot contact the author. If a reviewer believes that contact with the author is necessary, then he or she should notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

The role of the reviewer
The key role of a reviewer is to help the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor to decide whether to publish a manuscript by commenting on its academic value. Thus, reviewers must read the paper thoroughly and give clear comments. The reviewer should avoid questioning answers that are already present in the manuscript, or criticizing insignificant content. If the manuscript presents a new concept or topic but needs major revisions, the reviewer should give detailed comments to assist publication. When rejecting a submission, the reviewer should treat authors with courtesy.