Instructions for Reviewers

Thanks for accepting a review request by the Editorial Office of Korean Journal of Pharmcognosy (KJP). KJP cannot run without the effort of reviewers. This is a guideline for reviewers who participate in peer review process. We will appreciate if this guideline is highly considered in your review process.

1. 1. After click on the orange box (Acceptance of Review, 심사수락) in the review request e-mail (for an external reviewer, entering a verification code is necessary) and the action “Evaluate, 심사하기”, a reviewer can download PDF files and supplementary files. To submit a review, please follow the same step used in getting the PDF files.
2. 2. If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14 days of review period, please decline to review or ask for extension of the review period. If there is no review comment within the 14 days, the reviewer would be given a notice.
3. 3. The articles should have some novelty or original and interesting results with the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results. In addition, please check out that the submitted manuscript was prepared according to “Instructions for Authors” of KJP, especially checklists for authors, although editorial office check it again in the first and final steps. If the English is poor enough that it makes it difficult to understand the paper or to require English editing services, please add a comment about that (eg. English must be edited before I can give it a fair review. / A professional English editing service is required.). ”
4. 4. On the system, you will be asked for a recommendation of ‘Accept, 게재가능’, ‘Minor or Major Revision, 수정후 게재’, ‘Re-evaluation after revision, 수정후 재심’, or ‘Reject, 게재불가’, and will have the opportunity to input or upload comments to the authors in any format, and optionally, confidential comments to the editor (Only open to editorial board).
5. 5. Confidential comments to the 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.
6. 6. Ethical guideline for reviewers:
   • - Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
   • - Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest as follows:
     Reviewer is a competitor. / Reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s). /
     Reviewer may profit financially from the work.
   • - In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.
   • - A history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not prohibit the review.
   • - 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: Review opinions and decisions may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying the reviewer.

Thanks again for your consideration.