Asian Spine J Search

CLOSE


For reviewers

  • HOME
  • FOR CONTRIBUTORS
  • For reviewers

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 ASJ’s peer review process. All of the journal’s contents, including commissioned manuscripts, are subject to peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review
ASJ adopts double-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers cannot identify the authors and the authors cannot identify the reviewers either.
The Role of Reviewers
The peer reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscripts 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 meticulously considered. The use of reporting guidelines is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work that 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’ recommendations.
How to Become a Reviewer
Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office or recommended by authors. Anyone who wants to volunteer as a reviewer may contact the editorial office.
Accepting an Invitation to Review
Editors invite you to review because they believe that you are an expert in a certain area. They will have judged this from your previous publication record or posters and/or sessions to which you have contributed at conferences. Before you accept an invitation to review a paper, you 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 an extension of the review period.
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest? In case of any of the abovementioned 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 an ID and password, please download the PDF files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format; concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.
  • A review table with seven items (Originality, Scientific importance, Experimental design, Adequacy of methods, Brevity and clarity, Overall priority for publication, and Potential if adequately revised) is provided for the reviewer’s convenience.
  • Comment to authors: Summarize the manuscript’s content in one sentence. Mention the manuscript’s strengths but also any problems that lead you to believe that it should not be published or that it would need to be corrected to make it publishable.
  • Comment to editor: Both the strengths and shortcomings of the manuscript should be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here, including special opinions to the editor.
Ethical Guideline for Reviewers
1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest as follows:
  • A review table with seven items (Originality, Scientific importance, Experimental design, Adequacy of methods, Brevity and clarity, Overall priority for publication, and Potential if adequately revised) is provided for the reviewer’s convenience.
  • Comment to authors: Summarize the manuscript’s content in one sentence. Mention the manuscript’s strengths but also any problems that lead you to believe that it should not be published or that it would need to be corrected to make it publishable.
  • Comment to editor: Both the strengths and shortcomings of the manuscript should be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here, including special opinions to the editor.
In case of any of the abovementioned 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 authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not prohibit the review.
3. The reviewer 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.


ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea,
271 Cheonbo-ro, Uijeongbu 11765, Korea
Tel: +82-31-820-3578    Fax: +82-31-847-3671    E-mail: spinepjb@catholic.ac.kr                

Copyright © 2018 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.

Developed in M2community

Close layer
prev next