Guide for Reviewers

A reviewer’s main goal is to determine the suitability of a submitted paper for publication in J-KICS and provide feedback to the authors to help them improve the paper in subsequent revisions. All reviewers must submit their reviews via the J-KICS review system, ManuscriptLink, which provides complete access to all publishable parts of the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the merits of the paper and enter evaluation into recommendations conforming to the KICS standards for technical paper publication.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities 

  • Hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;

  • Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript;

  • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;

  • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

General Guidelines

A manuscript submitted to J-KICS are reviewed by at least two experts, who are invited by the academic editors of J-KICS due to their expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript. J-KICS uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Therefore, the authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.

Review Reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the academic editor on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected. The evaluation is to be provided in terms of Review Score, Review Comments, and Overall Recommendation. The Review Score will be rated on the following aspects: Appropriateness for publication in the Journal of KICS, Quality of contents and results of research, and recommendation of the paper for a Best Paper Award. 


As for the Review Comments, it should be based on the following evaluations:

  • Importance, significance, and soundness of the proposed hypotheses;

  • Suitability, feasibility, and accuracy of the experimental and analysis methodology;

  • Sufficient details given to replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis;

Overall Recommendation

  • Accept: The paper can be accepted without any further changes.

  • Minor Revisions: The paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. 

  • Major Revisions: The paper is not suitable for the J-KICS publication in the current form and requires extensive revision. The authors need to provide a point-by-point response to all the reviewer’s comments in the ‘Detailed Response to Reviewers’ and submit a revised manuscript. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided.

  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for the J-KICS publication.