1. Review of JGM Papers
If you have been invited to review a manuscript, please use our online peer review system.Then please carefully study our seven Editorial Criteria for Publication as the criteria employed by JGM are quite different from those of other journals.

The peer review of each article is rigorous and concentrates on objective and technical concerns to determine whether the research has been sufficiently conceived, executed, and described to justify inclusion in the scientific record. After publication, all articles are available for interactive discussions and assessment in which the whole scientific community can be involved. Unlike many journals that attempt to use the peer review process to determine whether or not an article reaches the level of ‘importance’ required, JGM uses peer review to determine whether a paper is technically sound and worthy of inclusion in the published scientific record.

2. Review Process
The manuscript submission and editorial review process includes the following steps:
1) An author submits a manuscript.
2) The manuscript is assigned to an editor, who reviews the manuscript and makes an initial decision based on manuscript quality and editorial priorities.
3) For those manuscripts sent for external peer review, the editor assigns reviewers to the manuscript.
4) The reviewers review the manuscript.
5) The editor makes a final decision based on editorial priorities, manuscript quality, reviewer recommendations, and perhaps discussions with fellow editors.
6) The decision letter is sent to the author.
As a reviewer, you are responsible for the fourth step.

3. Criteria for Publication
To be accepted for publication in JGM, research articles must satisfy the following criteria:

□ Does the manuscript report on primary research?
JGM is designed specifically for primary, scientific re-search. Therefore, the study should present the results of primary scientific research.

□ Have the reported results been published elsewhere?
JGM does not accept for publication work that has already been published elsewhere.Therefore, reported results must not have been published elsewhere. However, studies that replicate results that are already in the literature may be considered for publication in JGM, as the independent confirmation of results can often be valuable, as can the presentation of a new dataset (for example, a new clinical trial).

□ Are the experiments, statistics, and other analyses performed to a high technical standard anddescribedinsufficient detail?
The research must have been performed to a sufficiently high technical standard to allow for robust conclusions to be drawn from the data. Methods and reagents must also be described in sufficient detail so that another researcher is able to reproduce the experiments described.

□ Are the conclusions presented in an appropriate fashion, with speculations and hypotheses identified assuch?
The results must be interpreted appropriately, such that all conclusions are justified. However, authors may discuss possible explanations for their results as long as these are clearly identified as speculations or hypotheses rather than as firm conclusions. Inappropriate interpretation of results is a justifiable reason for rejection.

□ Is the article presented in an intelligible fashion and writtenin English?
Perfect, stylish English is not essential, but the language must be clear and unambiguous. If the language of a paper is poor, editors should recommend that authors seek independent editorial assistance before submission of a revision. Poor presentation and language are justifiable reasons for rejection.

□ Does theresearch meet allapplicable standards with regard to the ethics of experimentation and researchintegrity?
Research published in JGM must have been conducted to the highest ethical standards. A brief description of the most common of these is described in the Editorial and Publishing Policies. Please contact JGM staff (jgenetmed@ kjgm.org) if you have queries as to whether these standards have been met.

□ Does the article adhere to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability
JGM aims to promote openness in research and intends that all work published in JGM can be used as a basis for future researchers.Wetherefore demand conformity to standardsfor the public deposition of data (for example, gene sequences, microarrayexpressiondata,andstructura lstudies). Othersimilar standardsthatareapplicabletospecificcommunitiesshouldalso beupheld.Authorsshouldcons ultoureditorial policies (http:// www.e-kjgm.org/policies. action#reporting) for information abouttheguidelinesandsta ndardsthatapplytotheirstudy.

The JGM Board of Editors, and any invited external peer reviewers, will evaluate submissions against these criteria.

4. Overview of the Editorial Process
JGM will provide all authors with an efficient and “hasslefree” editorial process. Our aim is to identify thosesubmissions that warrant inclusion in the scientific record. The editorial process is run by the journal’s Board ofEditors (BE) who work to orchestrate the peer-review process. The BE is invited to handle submitted manuscripts on the basis of the content of the manuscript and their own expertise. The BE evaluates the paper and decideswhether it describes a body of work that meets the editorial criteria of JGM. The BE can employ a variety of methods, alone or in combination, to reach a decision in which they are confident:
□ They can conduct the peer review themselves, based on their own knowledge and experience.
□ They can seek further advice through discussion with other members of the editorial board.
□ They can solicit reports from additional referees.

After appropriate consideration by the BE, a decision letter to the author is drafted.This letter may also be circulated to other members of the editorial board, each of whom is given an opportunity to comment on the editorial decision. There are four possible decisions:
□ Accept
□ Minor revision
□ Major revision
□ Reject

Upon acceptance, the manuscript is checked by JGM staff to ensure that it is in a form that will allow it to be efficiently handled by our production system. The authors will be contacted and allowed to make any final minor revisions that are needed. This is the final stage at which authors will see their manuscript before publication.The authors’ files will be carefully tagged to generate XML and PDF files.

5. Writing the Review
The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration. The review should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they are acceptable for publication in JGM. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the authors themselves. A good review will answer the following questions:

□ What are the main claims of the paper?
□ Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
□ Do the experimental data support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
□ Who would find this paper of interest and why?
□ In what further directions would it be useful to aim the current research?

6. Confidentiality
The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. As the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one who is not directly involved with the manuscript (including colleagues and other experts in the field) should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the editor. Reviewers must not use any confidential information they have gained in the review process before the paper is published. Even after publication, unless they have the permission of the authors to use other information, reviewers may only use publicly published data (i.e., the content of the published article) and no information from any earlier drafts.

7. Anonymity
Although reviewers may remain anonymous during the review process, we strongly urge them to relinquish this anonymity to promote open and transparent decision-making.

8. Competing Interests
As much as possible, we respect requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest, such as those who may have been collaborators on other projects with the authors of this manuscript, those who may be direct competitors, those who may have a known history of antipathy with the author(s), or those who might profit financially from the work. Because it is not possible for all such competing interests to be known by a particular editor, we request that reviewers who recognize a potential competing interest inform the editors or journal staff and recuse themselves if they feel that they are unable to offer an impartial review. Read more about this in the policy of the Public Library of Science regarding competing interests. When submitting your review, you must indicate in the box provided whether or not you have any competing interests. On occasion, reviewers may be asked to offer their opinion on a manuscript that they may have reviewed for some other journal.This is not in itself a competing interest.That two journals have identified the same person as especially well qualified to judge the manuscript under consideration does not in any way decrease the validity of that opinion and may perhaps even enhance it.

9. Feedback to Reviewers
We send reviewers’ comments along with the decision letter to reviewers of that manuscript. If reviewers have identified themselves, this information will be passed on to other reviewers. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a decision.