KMS REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ARTICLES AND NOTES
The principal objectives of the peer-review process are to ensure that manuscripts accepted for publication in the journal and other serials describe work of high scientific quality that is presented in a clear and attractive manner. The review procedure is a vital part to the process of improving the communication of research ideas and accomplishments.
Electronic or hard copy submitted manuscripts are first screened by KMS Editor to see whether they are complete and in proper format. The screening form that is used for this purpose is as follows:
If the items on this form are not met, the author is notified that the submission is incomplete. In most cases, the manuscript will not be dated nor will the remainder of the review procedure be initiated until the author provides a complete submission in some cases, the peer review may proceed while items are in the process of being met. Authors may find it useful to review the itemized list below prior to submitting their manuscript. If a manuscript qualifies by meeting the requested criteria, KMS Editor forwards the manuscripts to the reviewers.
- After receiving a manuscript, the chief or co-chief editor examines the subject matter and decides whether it is suitable for the journal of the KMS. If a manuscript appears not suitable for the journal, it will be returned to the author with a recommendation that it be submitted to that other journal.
- Based on the subject matter of the manuscript, the editor chooses an appropriate reviewer to process the manuscript through the review, revision, and acceptance/rejection procedures. In some instances, the editor may also serve as a reviewer for a manuscript.
- Manuscripts of potential articles and notes are generally sent to two or three reviewers. As noted previously, reviewers are selected for their expertise in the subject area of the paper. They are enjoined to maintain the confidentiality of the research results entrusted to them.
In determining the suitability of a manuscript for publication, the reviewers are asked to consider the following questions.
- Is the study a worthwhile contribution to the field?
- Are errors made in inference, interpretation, or mathematical analysis?
- Is the presentation clear, concise, and well organized?
- Is the abstract informative, giving the essence of the research in clear and sufficient terms?
- Does the manuscript follow the formant of the journal with respect to SI units, references, and so on?
- The reviewers must explicitly recommend to the editor as to whether the manuscript should be:
a) Accepted as is
b) Returned for revisions and if these are minor or major. For major revision the manuscript must be referred again to the original reviewer after revision.
The journal Editor may provide additional instructions to reviewers on the types of recommendations they should provide, and some editors supply a checklist to guide reviewers