KJFM adopts double blind review, which means that reviewers and authors cannot identify each others’ information.

Peer reviewer’s role is to advise editors to accept, revise, or reject individual manuscripts. 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 reviewers' recommendation.

Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office. Anyone who wants to work voluntarily as a reviewer can contact the editorial office at https://kjfm.or.kr/about/contact.php.

When the editoral office requests to review a manuscript, if review comments cannot be submitted within the 2 weeks of review period, please decline to review it or ask for extension of the review period. If there is no review comment within the 6 weeks from acceptance to review, the editorial office may replace the reviewer.

After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download the PDF file and supplementary files. Please concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results. It is not enough to comment on the style and format. A reviewer must complete the first review within 2 weeks from acceptance to review. The second review must be completed within 1 week.

● Checklist for peer review: Review table with 6 items is provided for the reviewer’s convenience as follows:

1. Originality
Does this article contribute additional value to existing knowledge?	Yes / No
2. Importance
Are the articel's research topics important to clinicians, researhers, policy makers, educators, or patients?	Yes / No
Dose this article fit the scope of the journal?	Yes / No
3. Composition: Abstract
Was the abstract written prperly when considering the contents of the text?	Yes / No
4. Composition: Main Body
Introduction: Did authors describe the need for and purpose of the research?	Yes / No
Methods: Are the research design and main outcome measure appropriate?	Yes / No
Result: Did the authors logically describe the answer to the research question?	Yes / No
Discussion: Did the authors explain the rationale and meaning of the study results?	Yes / No
5. Language
Is the English in the article readable?	Yes / No
6. Instruction for authors
Did the authors comply with the submission guidelines?	Yes / No

● Comment to authors: Summarize the whole content of manuscript in one sentence. Please make a specific comment according to the order of each section of the manuscript. Marking the page is good to trace review comments. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance should not be stated at the comment to authors. Consider if the peer review opinion may increase the quality of manuscript or further research by author.

● Comment to editor: Both the strength and shortness of the manuscript are recommended to be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here including special opinion to editor.

1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.

2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest as follows:

• In the case of clinical studies, the approval of the IRB and patient’s consent must be received and stated on paper.
• If there is a point of interest concerning funds, it should be elucidated.
• Observance of the guiding principles on report recommendation is made.
• Fee for reviewing the article has been sent.

In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, a reviewer should decline to review. If a reviewer wishes to review the manuscript, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.

3. A 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.

The review opinions and decisions made by reviewers may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying reviewers.

The editorial office may pay reviewers a limited one-time review fee.

If certificate of review is required, please contact the editorial office at https://kjfm.or.kr/about/contact.php.