KJMS Guide to Reviewers

All Reviewers should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guideline for peer review available at https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf to assess the validity of the articles under consideration so as to make a high-quality review.

Our review process is double blind

As a reviewer we expect you to

  1. Assess the suitability of the paper for KJMS. This should be sent as “Confidential Comments to Editor”
  2. Assess the study as a whole, including justification, objectives, design, and conclusions
  3. Carefully critique the article and graciously offer suggestions on how to improve it.
  4. Ensure your comments are objective, thorough and numbered for ease of reference by the authors
  5. Give us an overall recommendation (Reject, Major Revision, Minor Revision or Accept)
  6. Promptly send us your review comments (within the stipulated time which is 2-4 weeks)

Reviewers should Please consider the following points in their assessment of the manuscript

  1. Does the paper have all the key elements: abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, results, discussions, conclusions and references? Consider in each key element:
  2. Is the English satisfactory? Are there grammatical and/or syntax errors?
  3. Title – Is the title appropriate?
  4. Keywords – Are the keywords appropriate?
  5. Abstract – Does it convey the content of the paper?
  6. Introduction – Is the relevant literature used to justify the study, by clearly outlining the problem under investigation – stating what is known and the gaps the work is aiming to fill? Is the research question/the aims of the study clearly described?
  7. Methodology – Is the study design clear and appropriate to answer the research question/achieve the research objective ? Have patient recruitment/data extraction, study protocols, and analyses been concisely and adequately stated and are they appropriate in the context of the research question/objective of the study? Are the equipment and materials used adequately described? Does the paper contain sufficient information to replicate the research?
  8. Results – Are the analysis conducted using the appropriate statistical method? Are the results relevant to the research question? If not, what other results would be more informative for the reader?
  9. Discussions – Is there adequate explanation of what the Author(s) discovered in the research in the context of what is already known? Were the implication/significance of the research findings explained?
  10. Conclusion – Are the conclusions based on the results of the research? Do the conclusions explain the significance of the results obtained?
  11. References – Are there any important works that have not been included, especially a recent meta-analysis? Are the references accurate and recent?
  12. Are there any important aspects of the whole manuscript that are missing from the abstract? (the abstract and the complete manuscript should convey the same take-home message to the reader).

You can use the KJMS review form in the journal website to help in your review.