Guide for Reviewer
Practical guidance for accepting review invitations and writing high-quality, constructive reviewer reports for KUJAS.
Before You Accept or Decline
How to Peer Review for KUJAS
Structure of the Reviewer Report
The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of more than a few brief sentences. KUJAS does not require a specific structure for reports; however, a suggested format is:
- Summary
- Major issues
- Minor issues
Constructive and Confidential Feedback
Reviewers are encouraged to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should provide constructive analysis, particularly where revisions are recommended.
If you do not wish authors to see certain comments, include them in the confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief.
Core Aspects to Critique
- Are the research questions valid?
- Is the sample size sufficient?
- Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent, and was the research conducted ethically?
- Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
- Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
- Is the reporting of the methods (including equipment and materials) sufficiently detailed for reproducibility?
- Are any statistical tests used appropriate and correctly reported?
- Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
- Has previous research (by the authors and others) been discussed and compared with the current results?
- Are there any inappropriate citations (e.g., not supporting the claim, or excessive self-citation)?
- Do the results support the conclusions?
- Are limitations of the research acknowledged?
- Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
- Is the language clear and understandable?
Deadlines
To support timely editorial decisions, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline.
If you cannot meet the deadline, please contact KUJAS so an alternative date can be arranged.
Focus of the Report
Reviewers should focus on objective critique of the scientific aspects of the submission, including methodological soundness and whether conclusions are supported by results.
Comments may also address novelty and the potential impact of the work.
Recommendation Options
Confidentiality
Strict Confidentiality
Manuscripts under peer review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.
Consulting Colleagues
Reviewers may, on request, consult colleagues from their research group provided confidentiality is maintained.
Reviewers should first contact KUJAS or the Editor-in-Chief and note the colleague(s) name in the “Comments to the editor” section.
Conflicts of Interest
When to Decline
- Having a financial interest in the subject of the work
- Having previously discussed the manuscript with the authors
- Feeling unable to be objective
Disclosure
If you identify a potential conflict of interest, disclose it to the editor when you respond to the invitation.
Applications to Review
Applications to join the KUJAS community of peer reviewers are welcome. The Editorial Board selects reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis, inviting appropriate scientists based on subject expertise and publication record.
To ensure the journal has up-to-date contact details, interested reviewers should register for a user account on the KUJAS website.