JKP's peer-review policy is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to supporting ethical research practices. The journal reviewer follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.

Type of Peer Review

JKP employs double-blind reviewing, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers. We encourage the author to submit the title page (full information about authors) as separated from the main manuscript. The templates are available in the guideline for author. 

How the Referee is Selected? Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. As our reviewer database is constantly being updated. JKP welcomes suggestions for referees from the author(s), though such non-binding recommendations are not necessarily used. The manuscript will be reviewed by a minimum of two independent referees. After that, the decision will make by the editor.

Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• Is original as to thought and method (including data)
• Is methodologically sound
• Has results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• Correctly and exhaustively references previous relevant work
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines, especially as concerns plagiarism
• Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field

Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript. In the final round, the handling Editor will check matters of linguistic and stylistic correctness, and may suggest or apply corrections at this point. In rare cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.

Peer Review Process

After receiving an e-mail with an invitation to review a journal article. The referee needs to respond by clicking the link of the referee's response wheater able or not to review the manuscript. After that, the referee can follow the steps on the website. The referee may fill the comments for the author box or upload a file with the comments. Each reviewer is required to take an initial decision by selecting the option below

• Accept Submission: the manuscript is meet the standard and is ready for further process of publication.
• Revisions Required: Minor revision (can be re-reviewed by the referee or accepted by editor).
• Resubmit for Review: Major revision (need more round peer-review process)
• Resubmit Elsewhere: Doesn’t seem like a fit for the focus and journal scope.
• Decline or Reject Submission: Reject the submission due to many weaknesses and out of journal standards.

How Long Does the Review Process Take?

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. For the JKP, the typical time for the first round of the refereeing process is approximately four weeks. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. In the rare cases when it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, whilst the one referee’s extant report has thoroughly convinced the handling Editor, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision may be made, at the handling Editor’s discretion, on the basis of only one referee report. The handling Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with the referees’ recommendations, usually including the latter’s verbatim comments. As a rule, revised manuscripts are sent to the initial referees for checking; these may then request a further revision.

Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the referees, including (if applicable) the latter’s verbatim comments.

The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final

Referees advise the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.