Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

1. Peer Review Policy

Medical JKK is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, scientific validity, and integrity of published research through a rigorous and ethical peer review process. All research manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated based on their relevance to the journal's focus and scope, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and overall quality.

Medical JKK applies a double-anonymous peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This approach is intended to promote objective, fair, and impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's basic submission requirements.

The initial screening includes the following aspects:

  1. Scope and relevance: The manuscript must be relevant to the focus and scope of Medical JKK.

  2. Originality: The manuscript must represent original scholarly work and must not constitute plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text recycling.

  3. Submission requirements: The manuscript must comply with the journal's author guidelines and formatting requirements.

  4. Research ethics: The manuscript must contain appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, clinical trial registration, or other relevant ethical statements where applicable.

  5. Scientific quality: The manuscript must demonstrate a clear research objective, an appropriate methodology, and a reasonable basis for its conclusions.

  6. Publication integrity: The editorial team may conduct similarity checks and other preliminary assessments to identify potential publication ethics concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for technical corrections or rejected without external peer review. Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment.

Reviewers should not be members of the editorial team responsible for the manuscript's editorial decision. The journal seeks to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission, where permitted by the journal. However, the final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the editor. Suggested reviewers are subject to independent verification, and the journal is not obligated to appoint them.

4. Double-Anonymous Review Procedure

Medical JKK maintains the anonymity of authors and reviewers throughout the review process.

To support this procedure:

  • Author names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, and other identifying information are removed from the manuscript files provided to reviewers.

  • Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors or disclose their own identities to the authors.

  • Authors must avoid including identifying information in the anonymized manuscript and should remove identifying metadata where appropriate.

  • All communication concerning the review process is managed through the journal's editorial system or authorized editorial communication channels.

If anonymity is inadvertently compromised, the editor will assess the circumstances and take appropriate measures to preserve the fairness and integrity of the review process.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively, considering the following criteria, where applicable:

  1. Relevance: Alignment with the journal's focus and scope.

  2. Originality and contribution: Novelty, significance, and contribution to existing knowledge.

  3. Research objectives: Clarity and consistency of the research questions, objectives, or hypotheses.

  4. Literature review: Adequacy, relevance, and currency of the cited literature.

  5. Methodology: Appropriateness, transparency, validity, and reproducibility of the research methods.

  6. Results and analysis: Accuracy and clarity of the results, data analysis, and interpretation.

  7. Discussion: Strength of the interpretation, engagement with existing literature, and acknowledgment of limitations.

  8. Conclusions: Consistency of the conclusions with the findings and research objectives.

  9. Research ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical requirements, including participant protection, informed consent, confidentiality, and animal welfare where relevant.

  10. References: Accuracy, relevance, and appropriate attribution of sources.

  11. Presentation: Clarity of writing, organization, tables, figures, and other supporting materials.

  12. Publication integrity: Any indications of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate citation practices, or other potential research misconduct.

For medical and health-related research, reviewers should also assess relevant clinical, statistical, and methodological considerations, including trial registration and applicable reporting guidelines where appropriate.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers submit a written report and recommendation to the editor. The available recommendations are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarification before a final decision.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes and may need further evaluation.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication or has fundamental deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the editor responsible for the manuscript, based on the review reports, the manuscript's scientific merit, the journal's editorial policies, and applicable ethical requirements.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript before the completion of the editorial and peer review process.

7. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports, the editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author through the journal's editorial system.

The decision may be one of the following:

  1. Acceptance for publication.

  2. Acceptance subject to minor revision.

  3. Major revision and resubmission for further evaluation.

  4. Rejection.

Where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek an additional independent review or conduct a further assessment before making a decision.

The editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation if there are sound scholarly, ethical, or editorial reasons for a different decision. Such decisions must be made fairly and consistently with the journal's policies.

8. Revision and Re-Review

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial office or request an extension when necessary.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a suggestion is not adopted, the authors should provide a clear and reasoned explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions and the editor's assessment.

A revision request does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance. The editor may request further revisions or reject the manuscript if the concerns raised during the review process remain unresolved.

9. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to comply with the following ethical principles:

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and review materials must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, copy, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal, professional, or financial advantage.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or associated materials to generative artificial intelligence tools or other third-party services where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or research data.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews must be based on scholarly merit and supported by clear reasoning. Comments should be professional, respectful, specific, and constructive. Personal attacks, discriminatory language, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, including financial, personal, professional, institutional, or academic relationships that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when a conflict of interest prevents an independent assessment or when they lack the necessary expertise.

Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can complete the evaluation within the agreed timeframe. They should promptly notify the editor if additional time is required or if they are unable to complete the review.

Research Integrity

Reviewers should inform the editor confidentially if they identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, or other concerns about research integrity.

Reviewers should not investigate such allegations independently or contact the authors directly about suspected misconduct without authorization from the journal.

10. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for managing the review process fairly, confidentially, and transparently.

Editors must:

  1. Select reviewers with appropriate expertise and independence.

  2. Consider manuscripts objectively, without discrimination based on the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political beliefs, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

  3. Declare and manage any conflicts of interest and withdraw from decisions where impartiality may be compromised.

  4. Protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer identities, and editorial communications.

  5. Base decisions on scholarly merit, reviewer feedback, research integrity, and the journal's stated policies.

  6. Investigate credible concerns about research or publication misconduct in accordance with applicable ethical guidance.

  7. Avoid allowing commercial, financial, or other inappropriate considerations to influence editorial decisions.

  8. Ensure that any exceptions to the standard peer review procedure are handled transparently and documented appropriately.

If the editor-in-chief has a conflict of interest in a manuscript, the manuscript must be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict.

11. Research Ethics and Publication Misconduct

Medical JKK takes allegations of research misconduct and publication ethics violations seriously.

If concerns arise during peer review, the editor may request clarification, supporting documentation, ethics approval information, consent documentation, or other relevant evidence from the authors.

Depending on the nature of the concern, the journal may suspend the review process, seek confidential advice, consult the relevant institution, or take other appropriate steps consistent with publication ethics guidance.

Allegations must be assessed fairly, and authors should have an appropriate opportunity to respond. Editorial action will be proportionate to the available evidence and the nature of the concern.

Where necessary, the journal will follow relevant COPE guidance for handling suspected misconduct.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or an apparent breach of the journal's policies may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal must identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting explanations or evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer's academic opinion alone does not necessarily justify an appeal.

Appeals will be considered by the editor-in-chief or an independent editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where appropriate.

Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, editorial decisions, conflicts of interest, or the integrity of the review process will be handled confidentially, fairly, and in accordance with the journal's relevant policies.

13. Publication of Review Reports

Peer review reports are used to inform editorial decisions and improve manuscript quality. Under the standard double-anonymous model adopted by Medical JKK, reviewer reports are not routinely published alongside articles.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is expressly permitted under a clearly stated journal policy and the relevant individuals have been appropriately informed.

Any exception to the standard procedure must be handled transparently and consistently with the journal's published policies.

14. Peer Review Timeline

Medical JKK aims to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible while maintaining appropriate standards of quality and integrity.

The time required for review may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional reviews, and the extent of revisions required.

Authors will be informed of editorial decisions through the journal's editorial system. Any review-time estimates published by the journal should reflect its actual editorial performance and be reviewed periodically.

15. Final Editorial Authority

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editor-in-chief or an authorized editor acting in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

Acceptance is based on the manuscript's scientific quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not replace, editorial judgment.

Medical JKK reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage if credible evidence emerges that it violates the journal's publication ethics policies or fails to meet the journal's standards.

16. Ethical Standards and References

The peer review process of Medical JKK is guided by the principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, accountability, and research integrity.

The journal refers to the following publication ethics resources:

  1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:
    https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

  2. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME – Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing:
    https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

These resources guide the journal in developing and maintaining responsible editorial and peer review practices.