There is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of Korean Journal of Family Medicine(KJFM). All contents of KJFM, including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

Double blind peer review

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

Role of reviewers

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.

How to become a reviewer

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

How to write review comments

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.

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 reviewer belongs to the same institution as the authors.
- A reviewer is a competitor.
- A reviewer may have an antipathy with the authors.
- A reviewer may profit financially from the work.

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.

Post-review work by the editorial office

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

Review fee

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

Certificate of review

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