Guide for Reviewer

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

Q1) Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

Q2) Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.

Q3) Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

How to peer review for JKSC

The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. JKSC does not require a specific structure for reports, however, a suggested format is: 

  • Summary
  • Major issues
  • Minor issues 

We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the editor in chief. While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include: 

1- The scientific arbitrator has an account on the journal platform by registering on the platform, and thus he has owned an account as an arbitrator and an author at the same time.

2- The arbitrator receives an e-mail via his mail in which he registered on the platform from the Editor-in-Chief notifying him of his assignment to arbitrate the research.

3- To be sure that the research title matches his exact scientific specialization or general specialization at the very least.

4- Download the research on the electronic device and start reading it.

5- After completing the reading of the research, the arbitrator begins the process of evaluating the research by filling out the form attached to the message that will be sent to him via his e-mail by the Editor-in-Chief

6- If the arbitrator has any other observations, he writes them down on a separate sheet and sends them through the platform, as the platform allows the arbitrator to attach notes files, write opinions and corrections to the research, and then resubmit the research.

7- After the research is sent by the arbitrator, he will be notified by an e-mail of receipt of the research.

8- After receiving the research, the editor-in-chief sends the research and notes to the author, and the latter must fully and literally adhere to all the notes and take them into consideration.

9- After making the corrections and re-submitting the research by the author, the editor-in-chief checks the extent of the researcher’s commitment to notes.

To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact JKSC if they are unable to meet the deadline so an alternative date can be arranged. 

We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions: 

  • Accepted
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Unable to Review 


Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process. 

Reviewers may, on request, consult with colleagues from their research group trusting that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. Reviewers should first contact JKSC or the Editor in Chief and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report.

Conflicts of interest 

Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they: 

  • Have a financial interest in the subject of the work.
  • Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
  • Feel unable to be objective. 

Applications to review 

We appreciate applications to join our community of peer reviewers. Our Editorial Board selects reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis. In each case, they invite the most appropriate scientists from their own specialty and/or publication list. To ensure we have your up-to-date contact details, interested reviewers should register for a user account.