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.
The Editor-in-Chief checks whether a manuscript submitted online fulfills the submission guidelines; if it does, an Associate Editor is appointed
The Associate Editor appoints two reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field, making a total of three reviewers.
The reviewers choose an appropriate course of action from the following list of options: ① Accept, ② Minor revisions, ③ Major revisions, ④ Reject. Decisions must reflect the "submission guidelines" and "guidelines for reviewers."
The Associate Editor will make the final decision by collecting the reviewers' recommendations and forward them to the Editor-in-Chief. If one or more reviewers have recommended that the submission be rejected, an additional reviewer can be appointed, or the submission can be rejected.
The Editorial Committee reviews the results and decides whether or not to publish the article. If the Editorial Committee decides to accept the manuscript, it will be published after an English editing and correction process.
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 GuidelineTable of review guideline
|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.|
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.|
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.|
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)|