Check before you accept the invitation to review

1. Expertise
Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

2. Competing interests
Ensure you declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests. If you are unsure about a potential competing interest that may prevent you from reviewing, do raise this. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (eg, within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

3. Timeliness
If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you are able to return a review within the proposed time frame (15 days). Please inform us promptly if you require an extension. If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the authors.

Conducting a review

1. Initial steps
Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of KJO.

2. Confidentiality
Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from KJO.

3. Bias and competing interests
It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify us. Similarly, notify us as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process.

4. Suspicion of ethics violations
If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, let us know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact us and do not attempt to investigate on your own.

Preparing a review

The reviewers are asked to submit the Review Report within 15 days after accepting the assignment.

Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

The followings are the points that you should consider commenting on when preparing your review report.

• • The importance of the topic/research question.
• • The originality of the manuscript.
• • The strengths and weaknesses of the method described in the manuscript.
• • Make specific useful comments on the writing of the manuscript (e.g., writing, organization, figures, etc.).
• • Offer specific comments on the author’s interpretation of the results and conclusions drawn from the results.
• • In case applicable, comment on the statistics.

Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. KJO allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. KJO also ask for a recommendation to accept/Major revision/Minor revision/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigour of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from KJO to involve another person. Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript. Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from authors.

After peer review

If possible, try to accommodate requests from KJO to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts you have reviewed previously. It is helpful to respond promptly if contacted by us about matters related to your review and to provide the information required. Similarly, contact us if anything relevant comes to light after you have submitted your review that might affect your original feedback and recommendations. Continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and do not reveal details of the manuscript after peer review unless you have permission from the authors and KJO.

Reference

COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9