Contribution to editorial decisions

As KAR is a peer-reviewed journal with a double-blinded review to ensure the anonymity so that the referee and the submitter did not know each other. Reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor. KAR appoints three reviewers that have expertise in the submitted manuscript among those who meet the qualifications.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

KAR has a policy that the manuscript submitted should be reviewed within four weeks since the manuscript is first submitted to KAR, and within three weeks since the revised manuscript is submitted. Although it is not mandatory, KAR requires reviewers to meet the deadline for paper review.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.