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
- Assess the suitability of the paper for KJMS. This should be sent as “Confidential Comments to Editor”
- Assess the study as a whole, including justification, objectives, design, and conclusions
- Carefully critique the article and graciously offer suggestions on how to improve it.
- Ensure your comments are objective, thorough and numbered for ease of reference by the authors
- Give us an overall recommendation (Reject, Major Revision, Minor Revision or Accept)
- 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
- Does the paper have all the key elements: abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, results, discussions, conclusions and references? Consider in each key element:
- Is the English satisfactory? Are there grammatical and/or syntax errors?
- Title – Is the title appropriate?
- Keywords – Are the keywords appropriate?
- Abstract – Does it convey the content of the paper?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- Conclusion – Are the conclusions based on the results of the research? Do the conclusions explain the significance of the results obtained?
- References – Are there any important works that have not been included, especially a recent meta-analysis? Are the references accurate and recent?
- 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.