| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Editorial Office |  
top_img
Instructions for Reviewers > For Authors and Reviewers > Instructions for Reviewers



Recently revised February 2025

1. Introduction

These peer review guidelines are designed to ensure that all manuscripts submitted to the Clinical Ultrasound Journal are evaluated rigorously, fairly, and transparently. These guidelines also emphasize the distinctive aspects of clinical ultrasound, such as the integration of imaging findings with patient management, the evaluation of dynamic processes in real time, and the application of novel techniques in diverse clinical settings.

2. Criteria for Review

Manuscripts are assessed based on the following criteria:

  • Originality or educational perspectives: The study must present novel findings or provide new insights into clinical ultrasound practice or provide educational contents for clinician. For example, a manuscript could introduce a new imaging technique, reveal unexpected findings in ultrasound diagnostics or provide educational perspectives for clinician.
  • Relevance: The topic should align with the journal’s scope and be of interest to the clinical ultrasound community. For instance, research focused on applications of ultrasound in underexplored medical conditions would be highly relevant.
  • Scientific Rigor: The study design, methodology, and analysis should be robust and appropriate for the research question. As an example, studies employing prospective data collection with appropriate statistical tests would meet this criterion.
  • Clarity: The manuscript must be well-organized and written in clear, concise language. For example, results should be presented in logical sequences, supported by well-labeled figures or tables.
  • Ethical Standards: Submissions must adhere to ethical guidelines, including obtaining proper patient consent and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval when applicable. For example, case studies should explicitly confirm that informed patient consent has been obtained for publication. If obtaining informed patient consent is not possible, the author must provide a separate document to the ethics editor, explaining the reasons for this inability.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for providing constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback. Specifically, reviewers should:

  • Evaluate the manuscript according to the journal’s criteria.
  • Identify strengths and areas for improvement.
  • Ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical standards.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the review process if the conflict compromises their impartiality.
  • Report any ethical issues or concerns, such as suspected plagiarism, data falsification, or lack of appropriate approvals, directly to the editorial office.explaining the reasons for this inability.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Reviewers are responsible for providing constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback. Specifically, reviewers should:
  • Evaluate the manuscript according to the journal’s criteria.
  • Identify strengths and areas for improvement.
  • Ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical standards.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

4. Peer Review Process

The peer review process can be summarized in the following steps, visually represented by the flowchart below:

  • Initial Screening: Manuscripts are screened by the editorial team to ensure they meet basic submission requirements.
  • Reviewer Assignment: Suitable reviewers are selected based on their expertise, with a minimum of two reviewers required.
  • Double-Blind Review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
  • Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed comments and a recommendation (“Accept,” “Minor Revision,” “Major Revision,” or “Reject”).
  • Editorial Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on reviewer feedback and communicates it to the authors.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation, accompanied by a detailed rationale:

  • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or minimal revisions.
  • Minor Revision: Minor changes are needed, such as clarifications or grammatical corrections.
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes are required, including modifications to the methodology, data analysis, or interpretation.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.
For borderline cases where the recommendations do not fit neatly into these categories, reviewers should explain their concerns in detail and suggest a tailored approach, such as requesting additional data, re-analysis, or further clarification of key points. This ensures that the editorial team has sufficient context to make an informed decision.

6. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must report any ethical concerns, such as:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Missing ethical approvals or patient consent.
Confidentiality must be strictly maintained when handling ethical concerns to protect the integrity of the review process and the individuals involved.

7. Timelines

Reviewers are expected to complete their review within 2-3 weeks of receiving the manuscript. Extensions can be granted upon request.

8. Reviewer Recognition

The journal values its reviewers and provides recognition through:

  • Acknowledgments in an annual list of reviewers.
  • Certification of peer review upon request.
  • Incentives encourage active participation.

9. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editor or reviewer to ensure fairness and transparency. The decision of the independent review will be final, and authors will be notified promptly of the outcome.

10. Updates to Guidelines

These guidelines will be reviewed annually, with updates communicated to stakeholders via the journal's website to reflect evolving best practices in scholarly publishing.

Editorial Office
The Korean Association of Clinical Ultrasound
#1711, Hanshin Building, 12, Mapo-daero, Mapo-gu, Seoul, South Korea 04175
TEL: +82-2-702-4001, Fax: +82-2-373-1106, E-mail: editor@clinicalultrasound.org
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Copyright © The Korean Association of Clinical Ultrasound.                 Developed in M2PI