Peer review

The peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. KFN adopted ‘Double blind review’, and the reviewers can not know the identities of authors and vice versa. Authors who choose this option at submission remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process. Manuscripts submitted to JKFN will be generally reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers. The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field, taking account of the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation. The editor can require any information from reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

Duties of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Reviewers should provide the advises to editors regarding the appropriate decisions as follows: (1) Acceptance (with or without editorial revisions), (2) Major or minor revision: determination of the acceptance according to the revision by authors responded to the editors’ and/or reviewers’ comments, (3) Rejection (typically due to the following reasons: lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems, etc.). The editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript. The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Competing interests
Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript in review before the publication of the manuscript.