All submissions will be initially assessed by the KURO for completeness and sufficiency of documentary requirements submitted. If not, the KURO emails the author, and requests for resubmission of complete documents. Documents thus deemed complete and sufficient are then typically sent to a minimum of three (3) qualified scholars to assess the academic quality of the manuscripts. The Dean for Research makes the decision on the disposition of the manuscript (i.e. accept as is, minor revisions, major revisions, or not acceptable), based on remarks of the reviewers.

Peer review policy

All submitted (unpublished) manuscripts undergo a double-blind review process, i.e. both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least three (3) qualified scholars in the same subject area as the paper, who should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. The KURO should be informed of any significant conflict of interest that authors or reviewers may have, so that the appropriate action may be taken; for instance, a declaration of an author’s conflict of interest may be added in a manuscript or a reviewer may be disqualified. Examples of conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) the following:

• The authors should have no involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript
• The authors have not entered into an agreement with study sponsors or funders that interfere with their access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose
• The reviewer should have no prior knowledge of the submission
• The reviewer should not have recently collaborated with any of the authors

The process of peer review for the Madigan Award is detailed below:

1. The reviewers are asked to carefully read the manuscript and provide constructive feedback. After thorough review of the manuscript, reviewers write suggestions for revision and how to improve the manuscript, and make a recommendation for its disposition:

• Accept as is: This means that the manuscript is accepted in its present form with no further modifications. The manuscript will not be seen again by the reviewers.
• Accept with minor revisions: Also known as conditional acceptance, this decision means that the manuscript’s contribution (to the body of knowledge) is largely in place and that only minor, easily accomplished, low-risk changes are required. When a manuscript receives a minor revision decision, it will not be sent for a second round of peer review.
• Accept with major revisions: This means that the manuscript needs to be substantially improved before it can be accepted. Another round of peer review is required.
• Not accepted: This means that the manuscript cannot be accepted in its current form.

2. Based on reviewers’ comments, the decision on the manuscript’s disposition will be e-mailed to the authors together with the blinded first-round review summary report.

3. If the decision is to accept the manuscript with minor or major revisions, the authors make specific changes in response to each reviewer comment, and submit the revised manuscript. A cover letter or response letter must accompany the revised manuscript with point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

4. Revised manuscripts are usually sent for re-review. The results of the second round of reviews are based on how well the author has addressed the reviewers’ comments.

5. Authors are notified when a manuscript has or has not been accepted for the second tranche of the Madigan Award.

Ethics and Responsibility

            All papers reporting animal and/or human studies must state in the methods section that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and that the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board of the facility in which the studies were conducted provided (or waived) approval. For academic research papers, authors are also required to state in the methods section whether human participants provided informed consent and whether the consent was written or verbal. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Copyright infringement, plagiarism and other breaches of best practice in publication are taken very seriously. Prior to submission for the Madigan Award, authors are required to do a similarity check (i.e. using a duplication-checking software, e.g. TurnItIn) of the manuscript to determine whether it contains text in common with material on the internet. The similarity score, displayed in the TurnItIn report as a percentage similarity, should be below 40%.

If a manuscript is found to have plagiarized other work or included third-party copyright material with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, the KURO reserves the right to take action including, but not limited to, taking up the matter with the author’s department chair or school/college dean.

Authorship

            Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. The KURO recommends that authorship be based on the following criteria, defined by the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE):

1. Made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
2. Drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
3. Approved the version to be published;
4. Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Those designated as authors should meet all of these four criteria, and all those who meet these four criteria should be identified as authors. When a large, multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship.

Acquisition of funding, provision of technical services or materials, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group are not in themselves sufficient contribution to justify authorship. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section.

Bibliography

“Conflicts of interest.” (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html

“Defining the role of authors and contributors.” (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

 “What happens next to your submission?” (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.jneurology.com/what-happens-next-to-your-submission.php