Obstetrics & Gynecology Science is a peer reviewed journal. We invite you to review a manuscript on the recommendation of Obstetrics & Gynecology Science editorial committee. Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology will try to be consistent with the editorial policy and keep the prime quality of a journal to position as Index Medicus (PubMed) journal. We suggest that the prime responsibility of a reviewer is to assess the value of the contribution made by a paper to the aims of the Journal and to suggest ways in which this contribution may be enhanced. Please decide whether the manuscript is suitable for publication in the Journal regarding this reality. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science depends on the loyalty and dedication of its reviewers.
Guidance to write reviews
Does this article clearly present objectives?
Does this article well summarize the previous research results?
Have the references been properly & accurately cited?
*Importance of the work/ Interests of the work
Does this work matter to medical scientists and patients?
Will it help readers to make better decisions?
Is it meaningful enough to add more value to existing knowledge?
Original research includes the result of new data or reinterpretation of existing data, new ideas and new methods.
If a topic is not truly original does it add enough to what is already in the published articles?
-If it no, please provide the previous research outcomes to an author.
Does overall design of study be appropriate and adequate to answer the research questions?
Does research question be clearly defined and appropriately answered?
Are the sample selection and size appropriate and methods & results adequately described?
Does it describe its conditions adequately?
Does it clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Are research results credible and well presented?
Are the conclusions warranted by and sufficiently derived from on the data and fully discussed in the light of previous evidence?
Is this article well presented including use of tables and figures?
Are there any critical typos?
Are there any contradictory statements?
Does its main outcome clearly measured?
Was this study approved by IRB or did ethical committee previously inform consent?
Are there any ethical issues in the study?
*Conflict of Interests
When reviewers receive invitations to review manuscripts with which they have a clear conflict of interest, it is their responsibility to turn down the invitation or divulge the conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest can be of several sorts, the most common being a relationship between the reviewers with either the company that sponsored the research or with a company that competes with the sponsor of the research to be reviewed. It is fairest for reviewers with such conflicts of interest to decline the reviews.
Decision will be made based on the above guidance. Only a manuscript receiving a recommendation of "Accept" will be accepted for publication, after the author revises the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
You may give a rapid rejection when the cases are;
The article is derivative.
It simply repeats previous studies, or adds relatively little to existing knowledge.
The article is critically flawed.
The article is incomprehensible.
Manuscripts requiring revisions will be sent to the original reviewers for the second-round.
Please do not give new advice to an author at the second (third)-round review. Please let an author know everything what he/she has to know at the first-round review. The turnaround time normally should be no more than 4 weeks for one-round reviews and 6 months for two-round reviews.
Please properly review whether an author cites the references of domestic journals properly especially in Obstetrics & Gynecology Science, The Journal of the Korean Society of Menopause.
Please remark your review comment as an attachment if it possible and describe your revision point on article, statistical assessment, references, images and abstract separately. Even if you do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. Please try to be specific and constructive in the comments and recommendations you make, particularly where you feel that a manuscript is confusing.