Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Instructions to Reviewers

Dear Reviewers,

We, the Editors, believe that a review needs to be of a very high quality and conform to a standardized format in order to maintain and improve the already exacting standards at the KSSTA Journal. By asking our reviewers to adhere to the stringent standards (set out below in the form of "Headings"), we believe it is the highest compliment and the most useful feedback we can give to our authors. Therefore, when reviewing a manuscript we ask you to please pay meticulous attention to every part of the manuscript.

Please indicate your publishing recommendation by selecting the appropriate one from the drop-down box menu. Place all comments for the author(s) in the "Comments to the Author" box. N.B. the editor may submit your remarks in this box verbatim to the author or, may compose a summary of your review, with or without the comments of other reviewers, to the author. Place all confidential comments for the Editor in the "Confidential Comments to Editor" box. Nothing in this box will be revealed to the authors.

A written assessment is the preferred format option of a review and should be composed of two parts.

  1. The first assessment is confidential and should be placed within the section "Confidential Comments to the Editor" and include the following: a general comment about the manuscript, originality of idea, scientific content, length of the manuscript and a recommendation as to whether it should be accepted, revised or rejected.
  2. The second assessment should be placed within the section "Comments to the Author" and should be structured under the headings as set out below. Finally under each heading there are specifically prepared questions and aspects which we would like you to consider as you perform your review.


    Is the research question of interest? Is the work undertaken original or merely a repetition of well-known information? Generally manuscripts are overlong, therefore, please identify where it can be abridged without losing any vital information. Finally, please comment on the standard of English language usage but do not rewrite.
    This section must be concise, structured (purpose, methods, results and discussion) and not exceed 250 words. The content should contain: what was done, what the results were and a conclusion. In non-clinical studies, clinical relevance should be included.
N.B. Keywords and the Level of Evidence should be clearly noted.
    Levels of evidence
  3. TITLE

    The title should be concise and, therefore, short. It may be provocative but please give advice on a change of title if you feel it warrants correction or improvement. The title should not be a question.
    The introduction should provide the necessary background and why it is essential to do the study. Is the purpose of the study clear? Is the hypothesis specified (clinical studies only)? Please check for the scientific news value. Is it new news or just a repetition?
    Is the methods description accurate? Is it possible to replicate the study using the description in the methods section? Is the patient cohort adequately reported on, e.g. age, sex distribution, concomitant injuries, surgical procedure? Was a sample size calculation performed? This is especially important if groups were compared and no difference was found? Is it because there is no difference or because the sample size is to low. Is the randomization of the study adequately described? Are the numbers quality tested, e.g. reliability measurements such as test-retest? If it is deficient it can be addressed in the revised version. For clinical and animal studies, do the authors provide an IRB/ethical committee approval? If it is a prospective clinical study, the study should be registered in a clinical study register. This can be local register, which submits its data to https://clinicaltrials.gov or directly at clinicaltrails.gov.
    This section must be consistent with the Methods and Materials section. Are the results adequately reported with numbers (not only percentages) and distribution values, e.g. SD, SEM, or CI? Could the section be shortened (and often should be) by the use of tables and figures for the majority of numbers leaving only the most important information in the written section.
    This section should always commence with a brief outline of the principal findings of the study. Thereafter, the findings must be put into context and provide adequate comparisons with previous studies. N.B. It is not sufficient to describe only the finding of other authors. The manuscript's authors should contrast and comment on previous findings and compare them to their findings in a relevant fashion. Limitations of the study must be highlighted by the author(s). This is vital as it demonstrates that the authors are able to be self-critical and understand where their work meshes within its field. Finally and if not already included, there should be a brief mention on clinical relevance (especially relevant when dealing with experimental studies). Once again, this section may be overlong and shortened without difficulty. If this is the case please offer deletion guidance.
    This section should be just that, a conclusion and not a discussion. It needs to be short, concise and only based upon data contained within the manuscript. If any other material is present (even if true) please draw attention to it. It must be avoided. Often the conclusion section is too long and is a discussion and not a conclusion. Avoid words like 'we believe, we assumed it might be' etc.
    References must be carefully checked for formatting and should be up to date. Please provide the author(s) with more recent relevant recommendations.
    Each figure (including the legend) should be able to be read as a standalone element of the manuscript. Please confirm the quality of the figures, not least the accuracy of the description of the surgical procedures, e.g. arthroscopic images. Are there too many figures? A maximum of five is adequate and to include more would be atypical. Please check the quality of the figures, e.g. MRIs and drawings. N.B. Often figures and tables repeat information contained in the body of the manuscript. Please carefully look for any unnecessary duplication and provide clear recommendations on where information could be deleted.
  11. TABLES
    Tables can be extremely useful and replace otherwise lengthy results text. They must be clear and simple to comprehend. Please comment if you feel this is not the case and if they are too busy, confusing or complicated. In summary, most manuscripts are overlong so please assist the authors with clear recommendations on where deletions could be most effective, e.g. well-known information needs only to be included once. This can only make the manuscript both easier to read and understand. All manuscripts warrant revision if not once but multiple times, this is not only time consuming but rewarding and helpful.


Remember that as authors we can and may benefit from a critical review from a good reviewer in the near future. Reviews, therefore, have to be undertaken and completed in a critically constructive manner thereby encouraging authors to achieve the level of excellence in critical writing demanded by KSSTA. Many may never be published in KSSTA and we currently have a 70 to 80 % rejection rate but our overall aim is to encourage not to discourage.


A benefit to you as a reviewer is the constant exposure to new scientific information, which will offer positive benefits to you in your roles as teacher and author.


On behalf of myself and my deputy editor-in-chief, I would like to send you all my profound thanks for agreeing to act as a reviewer and continuing to uphold the standards of our Journal.