Reviewer Guidelines

Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback about the submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript. Please note that the Journal of Karnali Academy of Health Sciences does not approve any reliance on artificial intelligence tools that use large language models like Chat GPT, Google Bard etc. for peer-review.

All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party. If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first.
Please do not contact the author directly.

Before reviewing any manuscripts, you are expected to consider the following aspect:
1. Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternative reviewer of your contact with their email address and contact number.

2. Do you have time to review the paper?
Peer review of an article is expected to be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer of your contact with their email address and contact number. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

3. Are there any potential conflicts of interests?
While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

Criteria for publication:
For a manuscript to get published, the answer to each of the following questions should be ‘yes’:
1. Do the conduction and reporting of the manuscript meet the ethical standards?
2. Is the article original i.e. sufficiently distinct from prior works in its content or context?
3. Does it add anything to the body of knowledge or understanding or questions? (Null or negative findings may meet this criterion well.)
4. Is the methodology adopted is of sufficient quality and the limitations acknowledged?
5. Is the English language of the manuscript clear and comprehensible?
6. Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?

Organization and Clarity of the Manuscript:
When reviewing the manuscript, please keep the following point in mind:
1. Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
2. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
3. Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis and the general experimental design or method.
4. Method:
Does the author explain the research design?
Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected?
Is the design suitable for answering the question posed?
Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research?
Does the article identify the procedures followed?
Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail?
Was the sampling appropriate?
Have the equipment and materials been adequately described?
Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
Does the author use appropriate statistical method in the research?
5. Results:
This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider the following aspects:
Does the data is presented appropriately in tabulated and graphical way?
Does the author accurately use the statistical method which is being stated in method section?
Is the statistics analysis and reporting appropriate? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
6. Discussion:
Are the claims of the author (in this section) supported by the results stated in the result section of the manuscript?
Does the conclusion seem reasonable?
Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research?
Does the article support or contradict previous theories?
Is there appropriate justification
Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
7. Conclusion:
Is the conclusion seem reasonable and supported by the results reported?
Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
8. Tables, Figures, Images:
Are they appropriate?
Do they properly show the data?
Are they easy to interpret and understand?

Ethical Issues:
1. Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
2. Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
3. Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor.