We believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of ChiKD. All the journal's contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

Double-blind peer review

ChiKD adopts double-blind review which means that the reviewers cannot identify author information and authors cannot identify reviewers, too.

The role of reviewers

Peer-reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscript to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editorial office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendation.

Accepting an invitation to review

Editors invite reviewers to review as they believe that the reviewers are the expert in a certain area. They would have judged this from the reviewers’ previous publication record or posters and/or sessions they have contributed to at conferences. Before accepting an invitation to review a paper, reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Are you qualified?
  If the manuscript is too far outside your area, you should decline to review it.
• Do you have time?
  If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14 days of review period, please decline to review or ask for extension of the review period.
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
  In case of any potential conflicts of interest, you should decline to review. If you still wish to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.

How to write review comments

After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download the PDF files and the supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format, but reviewers should concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

• Review table with the seven items (Originality, Scientific importance, Experimental design, Adequacy of methods, Brevity and clarity, Overall priority for publication, Potential if adequately revised) provided for the reviewer’s convenience.
• Comment to authors: Summarize the whole content of the manuscript in one sentence. Mention the strengths of the manuscript, but also point out any problems that make the manuscript unsuitable for publication or corrections that would make the manuscript publishable.
• Comment to editor: Adding both strengths and shortness of the manuscript are recommended. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here including special opinion to the Editor.

Ethical guideline for reviewers

• Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
• Please inform the Editor on any conflicts of interest as follows: (1) reviewer is a competitor; (2) reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s); or (3) reviewer may profit financially from the work. In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed. A history of previous collaboration with the author(s) or any intimate relationship with the author(s) does not prohibit the review.
• Reviewers should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.