Editorial and Peer Review Policy

1. Editorial Process

• Initial screening: All submissions undergo an initial editorial check for scope, format, originality, and adherence to author guidelines.
• Editor assignment: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors oversee the review process for each manuscript.
• Reviewer selection: Editors assign each manuscript to at least three independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
• Conflict of interest: Authors of the manuscript cannot serve as reviewers. Reviewers are selected to avoid any professional or personal conflicts.

2. Peer Review Process

• Double-blind review: KIJOHNS Journal uses a double-blind peer review process. Neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identity during the review.
• Number of reviewers: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least three independent reviewers.
• Review criteria: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on originality, scientific rigor, methodology, clarity, clinical relevance, and adherence to ethical standards.
• Reviewer recommendations: Reviewers provide one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, along with detailed comments and suggestions.
• Optional structured language and correction workflow: The journal may offer reviewers and authors a supplemental, secure workspace (for example cloud-hosted) for machine-assisted language suggestions—always subject to reviewer acceptance—and for reviewers to flag specific text with explanations for author revision. Such tools support clarity and consistency; they do not replace substantive peer review, editorial judgment, or the double-blind nature of review where that model applies. Reviewers and editors remain accountable for scientific and ethical appraisal; authors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the final manuscript.
• Tools and confidentiality: Any review technology approved by the journal is subject to the same confidentiality obligations as the main submission system. Do not use unauthorized third-party services that upload manuscript content without editorial approval.

3. Editorial Decision

• Decision authority: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors make the final decision based on reviewer recommendations and their own assessment.
• Possible outcomes: Accept, Reject, Minor Revision, or Major Revision.
• Revisions: When a revision is requested, authors receive detailed feedback and must respond point-by-point to reviewer comments before resubmission.
• Reconsideration: In cases where reviewers disagree, the editor may request reconsideration from specific reviewers.

4. Proof Review (Post-Acceptance)

• Formatting: Accepted manuscripts are formatted for publication.
• Editorial board review: The formatted proof is sent to the editorial board for scrutiny and approval before final publication.
• Publication: The article is published when the editor approves the proof. Board feedback is solicited in advance; the editor may publish once satisfied, including if one or more board members have not yet responded.

5. Timelines

We aim to complete initial screening within 1–2 weeks, peer review within 4–8 weeks, and decisions within 2 weeks of receiving all reviews. Revision timelines depend on the extent of changes requested. Authors are encouraged to contact the editorial office if they have concerns about delays.

6. Appeals

Authors may appeal rejected manuscripts if they believe there was a significant error in the review process. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office with a clear justification. The Editor-in-Chief will review appeals and may consult additional reviewers. Appeals are considered on a case-by-case basis.