Kosin Medical Journal

Enacted on Jan 1, 2022

This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in the KMJ’s peer-review process. All of the journal's contents, including commissioned manuscripts, are subject to peer review.

Double blind peer review

The Kosin Medical Journal adopts double-blind reviews, in which reviewers do not have access to the identities of the authors and vice versa.

Role of reviewers

A peer reviewer’s role is to advise editors on revising, accepting, or rejecting submitted manuscripts. Judgments should be objective and comments should be explicit. Scientific rigor is the most important value of the journal; logic and statistical analysis should be meticulous. The use of a reporting guideline is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest. Reviewers should identify any relevant published works that have not been cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editorial office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers’ recommendations.

How to become a reviewer

Reviewers are typically invited by the editorial office or recommended by authors to review manuscripts. If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14-day review period, invited reviewers should decline to review the manuscript or request an extension of the review period.

How to write review comments

After entering the e-submission system by clicking the “Agree” button in a “Request for manuscript review” email, reviewers can download the PDFs of the manuscript and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format of a manuscript; scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results should be the focus of the review.

• Comments to authors: Summarize the whole content of manuscript in one sentence. This should be followed by specific comments according to the order of each section of the manuscript. Page marks are useful for tracking review comments. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance or rejection should not be included in the comment to authors. Consider if the peer reviewer’s opinion may increase the quality of manuscript or require further research by author.
• Comments to editor: Address both the strength and brevity of the manuscript. The reviewer’s recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript may be added here, along with any special opinions.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
2. Please inform the editor of any conflicts of interest as follows:
- o The reviewer is a competitor.
- o The reviewer may have antipathy toward the author(s).
- o The reviewer may profit financially from the work.
In the case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.
A history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship(s) with the authors does not prohibit a review.
3. The reviewer should not use any material or data that originated in the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.

Post-review work by the editorial office

Review opinions and decisions may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying the reviewer.

Certificate of review

If it is required, please contact the editorial office (office@kosinmedj.org). The reviewers may be listed in the editorial as an expression of appreciation.