GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Journal of Liver Cancer (JLC) aims to foster the acquisition and maintenance of up-to-date information to ensure high standards of practice. It is important that manuscripts are critically evaluated for compliance with the ethical and academic standards, including novelty and importance to the scientific field.

The review process

All reviews are processed online through the manuscript management system of JLC. JLC is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication which are valuable services both to our authors and the scientific community. We therefore ask that reviewers submit their reports within 2 weeks (preferably 1 week) or inform us if they anticipate a significant delay. This allows us to keep the authors informed and, when necessary, find alternative reviewers.

Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office or recommended by authors. Two or more reviewers per manuscript are invited by the editors. The editors decide on reviewers based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of authors and editors, and the editor's previous experience with a reviewer. In order to ensure fairness in the review process, we try to avoid reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest, including reviewers who currently are collaborators with the authors, those who may be in direct competition with the authors, those who have a history of dispute with the authors, or reviewers that have a financial interest in the outcome. As it is not possible for the editors to know of all such competing interests, reviewers who recognize such competing interests are requested to inform the editors and decline to review the manuscript. Anyone who wishes to work voluntarily as a reviewer may contact the editorial office at liver@klcsg.or.kr.

General guidelines for review

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscripts promptly according to following criteria: originality, scientific importance, adequacy of the methodology, substantial evidence for the conclusions, ethical and legal suitability, and correct and pertinent references.

Comments to the authors:

Reviewers are also requested to provide comments on the manuscript, which will 1) provide editors with the information necessary to reach a final decision, and 2) provide the authors with information on how to further improve their manuscripts

The reviewers’ comments can be directly typed in the box provided, or attached as separate files. Reviewers are encouraged to maintain a positive and objective attitude in evaluating manuscripts, and to be honest but not offensive in language when typing their comments. The ideal report should include 1) an initial paragraph summarizing the major findings and the reviewer's overall impressions, and 2) specific comments, preferably numbered, to the authors. In addition, reviewers may submit confidential comments to the editors.

Comments to the editors:

We recommend that reviewers mention the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here, in addition to any other confidential opinions.

JLC observes publication policy and research ethics. Reviewers are responsible to alert the editors to any research misconduct regarding authorship, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, multiple publication, conflicts of interest, privacy and confidentiality, and protection of human subjects and animals in research.

JLC observes publication policy and research ethics. Reviewers are responsible to alert the editors to any research misconduct regarding authorship, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, multiple publication, conflicts of interest, privacy and confidentiality, and protection of human subjects and animals in research.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

• 1. The review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers should not discuss manuscripts for JLC with anyone not directly involved in the review process, and should not disclose their identities to the authors or to other colleagues. If consultations to other colleagues or experts are necessary the Editor should be contacted first.
• 2. Please inform the Editor of any potential conflicts of interest, including the following:
  • The reviewer is a competitor.
  • The reviewer may have an antipathy towards the author(s).
  • The reviewer may profit financially from the work.
  • If any of these apply, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.
• 3. The reviewer should not use any material or data in the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.