Reviewing a manuscript is a high privilege and time-consuming responsibility. The Editorial Board of KJMS, authors, and readers highly appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedicated time. KJMS adapts to a double-blind peer-review process which ensures a high quality of published articles. In that regard, KJMS urges the reviewers to provide objective, fair, helpful comments within the allowed turnaround time for the initial reviewing process.


Scientific reliability
A valuable contribution to the science
Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
Ethical aspects
Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
References provided to substantiate the content
Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
Scientific misconduct
The is a checklist in the reviewer''''''''s page with 7 questions of 100 score, including:

1. Does this paper present new ideas or results that have not been previously published [10]

Yes NO

2. Are the results /ideas presented in this paper are important enough for publication [10]

Yes NO

3. Is the paper is technically correct? [10]

Yes NO

4. Are the conclusions and interpretations are valid and supported by data? [10]

Yes NO

5. Please choose one of the following: [30]

Exceptional work - makes a major contribution to the advancement of the subject (30) Good quality work - significant, novel, interesting, and influential (20) Borderline work - correct but low interest, unlikely to have an impact (10) Low quality work - adds little or no new knowledge to the field (5) Poor work - not free from basic errors and/or faulty judgments

6. Does this paper address a subject of current interest [10]

Yes NO

7. In your opinion, will the paper be cited by others [10]

The total score is collected and the final decision is sent to the editor in chief