Kmed Journal employs a double-blind peer review model for all original research, reviews, and case reports. Under this model:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
• Authors must remove all identifying information from their manuscript file before submission
• Reviewer identities remain confidential unless a reviewer chooses to sign their review

Letters to the editor, editorials, and commentaries may undergo single-blind or open peer review at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial office maintains a database of qualified reviewers and may also invite ad-hoc reviewers with specific expertise for individual manuscripts.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers in their cover letter, but the Editor-in-Chief has absolute discretion in reviewer selection and is not obligated to use suggested reviewers. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific reviewers with justification.

Peer reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments
• Declare any conflicts of interest and decline to review if a conflict exists
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 3–4 weeks)
• Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and review process
• Not use unpublished data or ideas from reviewed manuscripts in their own work
• Alert the editorial office to suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations

Failure to adhere to these standards may result in removal from the reviewer database.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty: Does the work represent a meaningful contribution to the field?
• Scientific rigour: Are the methods sound and appropriate? Are the data adequately analysed?
• Clarity and presentation: Is the manuscript clearly written and well-organised?
• Ethical standards: Does the study adhere to appropriate ethical standards?
• Interpretation: Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
• Relevance: Does the work fit the journal's scope and readership?

After peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will issue one of the following decisions:

Decision	Meaning
Accept	Manuscript is accepted as submitted or with only minor copyediting changes
Minor Revision	Manuscript is acceptable in principle but requires small corrections or clarifications
Major Revision	Substantial changes are required; revised manuscript will undergo further review
Reject with	Current version is rejected but may be resubmitted as a new
resubmission	submission after extensive revision
Reject	Manuscript is not suitable for the journal

While reviewer identities remain confidential to authors, we maintain internal records of all peer review activities for quality assurance and in case of disputes or allegations of misconduct. Reviewers are offered certificates of review upon request for their professional development records.

Note: These policies are subject to periodic review and update. Authors, reviewers, and readers should check this page for the most current version. Material changes to policies will be announced via the journal website and communicated to registered users. For questions or clarifications about any policy, please contact the editorial office at support@kmedjournals.com.