Instructions for Reviewers

Written on 20 Nov 2023

Purpose of Peer Review

  • To evaluate the scientific originality, reliability, validity and potential impact of the submitted manuscript on the field of phlebology.
  • To provide constructive critiques and comments to the authors in order to improve the quality of their works.

Peer Review Process

The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief sends the manuscript to reviewers for peer-review. Two reviewers considered as the most relevant researchers about the topic or as experts in the same subject are invited to review each article. The assigned reviewers review the manuscript, and then their review results are reported to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief notify these review results to the corresponding author. This decision is based on scientific originality, reliability, validity and potential impact of the material presented. If there is any objection to the review results, corresponding author can appeal within 2 weeks after being notified. Only papers with the potential to achieve a high quality will be accepted. For article publication, additional constructive guidances could be conducted to support clarity and understanding without altering the meaning. All accepted manuscripts also have undergone a statistical review as well.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are requested to recommend the manuscripts that are distinguished by the scientific originality, reliability, validity, and manuscripts which have the clinical, theoretical, and educational impact on the field of phlebology.

Reviewers should consider the following:

  • Scientific originality
  • Scientific reliability
  • Scientific validity
  • Impact of the specialty
  • Interest of the work to general readers
  • Research question
  • Study ethical
  • Reporting statement
  • Credible results
  • Justified conclusion
  • Relevant and comprehensible discussion
  • Appropriate tables and illustrations
  • Relevant references
  • Clear English

Based on the above considerations, reviewers are requested to recommend acceptance, major or minor revision, or rejection, including the comments that explain their decisions.

Ethical Guideline for Reviewers

  • The reviewer’s responsibility is to support the author in contributing the academic development of the manuscript.
  • The reviewer should respect the personality and efforts of the author, and avoid abusive language or unpleasant comments toward the author.
  • The reviewer’s opinion should be written in friendly manner, and this should be done positively rather than negatively.
  • The reviewer should objectively evaluate the content of the manuscript, not based on personal academic beliefs or assumptions.
  • The reviewer should provide constructive and precise comments which will support the editor’s decision and the authors’ improvement on the manuscript.
  • The reviewer should explain and support his/her opinion in detail so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind his/her comments.
  • The reviewer should judge under the principles of fairness, and do the best efforts to evaluate the article fairly regardless of his/her own research or personal relationship with the author.
  • If the invited reviewer is a competitor, he/she should notify to the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief by declining the review invitation.
  • If the invited reviewer has any conflicts of interest related to the content of manuscript, he/she should disclose it immediately to the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
  • The reviewer should treat the manuscript as confidential, and not use any data or the contained information from the manuscript until it is published.
  • Reviewer’s personal and subjective interests should not affect the reviewer’s decision.
  • Any kind of contact or communication between the reviewer and the author is extremely prohibited in the review process.
  • All communications about the reviewed manuscript are privileged.
  • Any suspicion of duplication, fabrication, plagiarism or scientific misconduct must be immediately notified to the Editorial Board.
  • If further statistical analysis needed, the reviewer should not hesitate to recommend the manuscript to be reviewed by the consultant statistician.
  • In the research involving human subjects or experimental animals, the reviewer should comment the appropriate or ethical considerations if needed.
  • The reviewer should not refer comments stating whether a manuscript should be published.
  • The reviewer should comment if language editing is needed.
AP
Vol.21 No.2 Dec 31, 2023, pp. 53~101

Most Keyword ?

What is Most Keyword?

  • It is the most frequently used keyword in articles in this journal for the past two years.

Most Read

Annals of Phlebology