This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of the journal. Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field. All of the journal's contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

Double blind peer review

JKGN adopts double blind review, which means that both the reviewer and the author are anonymous to each other.

The role of reviewers

Peer-reviewers’ role is to advise editors on individual manuscript to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal. Therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work, which have not yet 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 usually invited by the editorial office. Anyone who wants to work voluntarily as a reviewer can contact the editorial office at https://www.jkgn.org/about/contact.php

When invited by the editorial office to review a manuscript

Reviewers with expertise in manuscript-related fields are usually invited to review their manuscripts. The review deadline is within 10- days. if reviewer‘s comments cannot be submitted within the 10 days of review period, please decline to review or ask for extension of the review period.

How to write review comments

After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download manuscript files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format, but should concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

- Comment to authors
Please make specific comments according to the order of each section of the manuscript. The reviewer’s recommendation of acceptance should not be stated at the comment to authors.