Guide For Reviewers

General

We recognize the valuable time and expertise that our reviewers invest in assessing manuscripts submitted to our journals. Their contributions are vital to maintaining the high standards of our publications, and we highly appreciate their dedication and professionalism. We kindly request that reviewers, whenever possible, commit to reviewing subsequent revisions of manuscripts they initially evaluated. We are grateful for our reviewers' essential role in shaping our journals' quality and integrity.

Who can be a reviewer?

Reviewers play a crucial role in the academic publishing process. To ensure that a manuscript is thoroughly evaluated and improved, reviewers must have the necessary expertise and qualifications. The eligibility criteria for reviewers are as follows:

1. Subject Matter Expertise: Reviewers should have a strong background and expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
2. Academic or Research Position: Reviewers are typically academics, researchers, or professionals in the field.
3. Ph.D., M.D., or Equivalent Qualification: Reviewers usually hold a Ph.D., an M.D., or an equivalent qualification in a relevant field.
4. Publishing Experience: Reviewers often have experience publishing research papers in reputable journals.
5. Independence and Objectivity: Reviewers must be independent and objective, with no conflicts of interest or bias.

We welcome experts in various fields to join our reviewer community and help us maintain the high quality of our publications.

If you're interested in registering as a reviewer, you can:

• Register online: [Online Registration Form]
• Contact our editors: Send an email to [General Email] or [Editor Email] with your request to become a reviewer.

Confidentiality

KJN is committed to maintaining the integrity of the peer review process, and we expect all peer reviewers to adhere to the principles outlined in the COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Peer reviewers are required to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from:

1. Disclosing any details of a manuscript or communications related to it, during or after the peer review process.
2. Using information obtained during the peer review process for personal or professional advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
3. Sharing any information about the manuscript or its review to third parties, including colleagues or collaborators.

Peer reviewers should not Contact authors directly at any stage of the peer review process. Or Approach authors to suggest collaborative opportunities or invite themselves as co-authors during the revision stage.

Peer reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the journal. If permission is granted, please include the names of any individuals who have helped with the review in the designated field, so they can be associated with the manuscript in the journal's records and receive due recognition for their efforts.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are expected to consider whether they have any conflicts of interest that may impact the impartiality of the review. If any of the following situations apply, the invitation to review should be declined:

• Personal relationships: A close personal relationship with the author(s) or past collaboration.
• Professional relationships: A current or recent professional relationship (within the last 24 months) with the author(s) or their institution.
• Institutional affiliations: An institutional affiliation that may create a conflict of interest or the appearance of one.
• Financial interest: A financial interest in the research or outcome of the manuscript.
• Competing interests: Being in a competing research field and potentially biased against the manuscript.

If conflicts of interest are identified, please decline the invitation to review or contact the journal to discuss further. Reviewers should also remain unbiased by considerations related to a manuscript's author(s)' nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, origin, or other characteristics. Manuscripts should be evaluated based solely on their intellectual content, scientific merit, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

As a reviewer, your report plays a crucial role in the decision-making process for the manuscript's publication. The responsible editor's final decision will be informed by the strength of the author's and all reviewers' arguments.

Evaluating the Manuscript

To provide a comprehensive assessment, please evaluate the manuscript based on the following key criteria:

1. Relevance to Journal Scope: Reviewers are encouraged to assess whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's aims and scope.
2. Originality and Significance: Evaluate the manuscript's originality, significance, importance, and contribution to the field, including its potential impact on the subject area and how it engages the scientific community.
3. Novelty: Compare the manuscript's novelty to published work and rate it as significant, moderate, or low.
4. Scientific Merit: Assess the quality of the research, focusing on methodology, data analysis, and conclusions. Please prioritize scientific quality over formatting issues.
5. Clarity and Organization: Evaluate the manuscript's clarity and organization, including writing style, structure, and presentation.
6. Strengths and Weaknesses: Identify the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses and provide constructive feedback for improvement.

Step-by-step guide for reviewing the manuscript

As a reviewer, you play a vital role in maintaining the integrity and validity of research publications. Whether you are a seasoned reviewer or new to the process, this guide is designed to provide you with a comprehensive framework for reviewing manuscripts effectively. This guide is designed to walk you through the essential steps and best practices for reviewing a manuscript, ensuring that you evaluate the manuscript's content, methodology, and presentation in a thorough and objective manner.

Research question

1. What research question(s) do the authors aim to address in this manuscript?
2. Are the research question(s) clearly stated and well-defined?
3. Do the authors make a compelling argument for why the research question(s) are important and worthy of investigation?
4. Is the significance of the research question(s) adequately explained in the context of the existing literature?
5. Are the research question(s) feasible and relevant to the research field?

Title

1. Does the title accurately reflect the content and focus of the manuscript?
2. Is the title informative and descriptive, providing a clear indication of the research question and findings?
3. Does the title include the main keywords or phrases associated with the research question(s)
4. Is the title concise and free of unnecessary words or phrases?
5. Is the title consistent with the abstract and introduction?

Abstract

1. Does the abstract effectively summarize the manuscript, including the research question(s), methods, main findings, and conclusions?
2. Is the abstract concise and within the recommended word limit?
3. Is the abstract clear and easy to understand for a general audience?
4. Does the abstract provide an accurate representation of the manuscript?

Keywords

1. Do the keywords help readers find the article by accurately representing the main topics and themes?
2. Are the keywords relevant and specific to the article's content?
3. Are the keywords formatted correctly and consistent with the journal's guidelines?

Introduction

1. Is the introduction focused and directed toward the research question and hypothesis?
2. Does the introduction provide a clear and concise background on the topic, including relevant literature and context?
3. Is the research question and hypothesis clearly stated and well-defined, and are they specific, measurable, and achievable?
4. Are the significance and relevance of the study clearly explained, including the potential impact and implications of the findings?
5. Are the main points clearly stated and well-supported?
6. Are the references and citations accurate and up-to-date?

Methods

1. What research design and methods do the authors use to answer the research question(s)?
2. Is the chosen research design and methods the most suitable and effective way to answer the research question(s)?
3. Are the methods clearly described and justified?
4. Are the methods appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives?
5. Are the data collection and analysis procedures transparent and thorough?
6. Are the methods consistent with the existing literature and best practices in the field?
7. Are the potential biases and limitations of the methods acknowledged and addressed?

Statistics and results

1. Are the data analysis procedures robust and appropriate for the research question(s)?
2. Are the statistical tests and analyses correctly applied and interpreted?
3. Are the results accurately and clearly presented in the text, figures, and tables?
4. Are the results accurately interpreted in the context of the research question(s) and objectives?
5. Are the results subject to any biases or confounding variables that could affect the validity of the conclusions?

Discussion

1. Are the implications of the findings clearly explained and discussed, including their relevance to the field and potential applications?
2. Do the results support or challenge existing theories or hypotheses in the field?
3. Are the results consistent with the broader literature on the topic, and if not, are the discrepancies explained and discussed?
4. Do the results contribute to a new understanding or insight into the research question?
5. Are the limitations of the study and potential biases of the results adequately discussed and addressed?

Conclusion

1. Are the conclusions drawn from the results justified and supported by the data?
2. Are the conclusions specific, clear, and concise?
3. Do the conclusions summarize the main findings and implications of the study?
4. Are the conclusions aligned with the research question and objectives?

Overall

1. Does the manuscript fit together well and tell a clear story?
2. Are the various sections of the manuscript (e.g., introduction, methods, results, discussion) well-integrated and logically connected?
3. Is the writing clear, concise, and free of inconsistencies?
4. Are the transitions between sections smooth and easy to follow?
5. Are the references and keywords integrated well into the manuscript?
6. Are the appendices and supplementary materials clearly labeled and accessible?

Preparing Your Reviewer Report

To ensure a comprehensive and objective evaluation, please follow the suggested format below when preparing your reviewer report:

Summary: Start your report by summarizing the purpose and key results of the paper. This initial overview demonstrates to the authors and editors that you have engaged with the content. Follow this summary by providing structured feedback, which includes strengths, weaknesses, and specific suggestions for improvement. It is helpful to organize your comments into sections, which enhances clarity. Finally, ensure your tone is constructive and professional throughout the report.

Major issues: Major issues in a reviewer report are significant concerns that require attention and resolution by the authors before the paper can be considered for publication. These issues may significantly impact the validity, reliability, significance, or overall quality of the research. List any major revisions needed to address these issues. Conduct a literature search to determine if similar work has been published, incorporate relevant references into the manuscript, and evaluate whether the current results corroborate or contradict earlier findings.

Here are some examples of major issues:

1. Methodological flaws: Significant concerns about the research design, sampling, data collection, or analytical methods that may affect the validity of the findings.
2. Lack of theoretical foundation: The research lacks a clear theoretical framework or fails to properly situate itself within the existing literature.
3. Insufficient or missing data: Important data is missing, or the data provided is inadequate to support the conclusions drawn.
4. Poor data analysis or interpretation: The data analysis is flawed, or the conclusions drawn are not supported by the data.
5. Inadequate discussion of limitations: The authors fail to discuss the study's limitations or potential biases, which may impact the validity of the findings.
6. Lack of generalizability: The study's findings are not generalizable to the broader population or context.
7. Inadequate literature review: The literature review is incomplete, outdated, or fails to engage with relevant research in the field.
8. Unaddressed conflicts of interest: Potential conflicts of interest are not disclosed or addressed, which may impact the study's objectivity.
9. Plagiarism or academic integrity concerns: The paper contains instances of plagiarism, or there are concerns about the authors' academic integrity.
10. Lack of clarity or coherence: The writing is unclear, disorganized, or difficult to follow, which makes it challenging to understand the research and its contributions.
11. Inadequate or incomplete tables, figures, or supplementary materials: Important visual aids or supplementary materials are missing, poorly presented, or do not support the narrative.
12. Unclear or unsupported conclusions: The conclusions drawn are not supported by the data or are unclear, which may mislead readers.

When identifying major issues, reviewers should provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement to help the authors address these concerns.

Minor issues: Minor issues in reviewing a manuscript are concerns that are relatively minor and do not significantly impact the validity, reliability, or significance of the research. These issues can usually be easily addressed by the authors and do not require extensive revisions. Examples of minor issues include:

1. Typographical or grammatical errors: Mistakes in spelling, punctuation, or grammar that do not affect the overall meaning of the text.
2. Clarity and concision: Some sentences or paragraphs may be wordy or unclear, making it difficult to understand the author's message.
3. Format and organization: Minor issues with formatting, such as inconsistencies in headings or font sizes, or issues with the organization of sections or paragraphs.
4. References and citations: Minor errors in referencing, such as missing citations or inconsistent citation styles.
5. Figures and tables: Minor issues with the presentation or formatting of figures and tables, such as inconsistent formatting or difficulty in interpreting the data.
6. Lack of consistency in terminology or definitions: Minor inconsistencies in the use of terminology or definitions, which can be easily corrected.
7. Suggestions for additional information or explanations: Reviewers may suggest additional information or explanations to enhance the clarity or impact of the manuscript.

A good review is a balanced evaluation that provides constructive feedback to the authors, acknowledging the strengths, identifying the weaknesses, and providing actionable recommendations for improvement.