A high-standard review process is central to the success of the Journal of KIISE (JOK). Reviewers are responsible for evaluating whether a submitted manuscript meets JOK’s publication criteria and offering constructive feedback to help authors enhance their work. During the review process, reviewers must maintain confidentiality and evaluate the work objectively, free from bias. All reviews are conducted through the JOK review system, which provides full access to the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines, including the timely completion of reviews. Throughout the process, reviewers assess the paper's merits and provide recommendations in accordance with KIISE's standards for technical publication.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities 

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Timely Process and Helping Editorial Decision: Reviewers are expected to conduct their reviews promptly and to help the editor in making editorial decisions through their critical evaluation of the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Objective Judgments: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving their manuscripts.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. 

General Guidelines

JOK employs a double-blind peer review process, where three expert reviewers evaluate each manuscript without knowing the authors' identities, and vice versa. Authors must prepare their manuscripts to maintain anonymity. Reviewers, selected by associate editors based on expertise, assess the scientific quality of submissions.
Reviewers provide scores and detailed comments on several aspects: the manuscript's appropriateness for JOK, research quality and results, methodology, experimental procedures, and analysis. They also evaluate the importance and soundness of proposed hypotheses, as well as the potential for replication.
Based on these evaluations, reviewers recommend one of four outcomes:

-    Accept (Publish as is)
-    Minor Revisions (Publish as is after modification)
-    Major Revisions (Re-examine after modification)
-    Reject (not suitable for JOK publication)