This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in the peer review process of Annals of Coloproctology (ACP). All contents of the journal, including commissioned manuscripts, are subject to peer review.

Double-blind peer-review
ACP adopts double-blind review, in which reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and vice versa.

The role of reviewers
The reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscript to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The Editorial Office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendation.

How to write review comments
After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download the PDF files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format, but reviewers should concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

• The following review table is provided for the reviewer’s convenience:

PRIORITY	Lower 50%	Top 50%	Top 25%	Top 10%
1) Originality	○	○	○	○
2)Scientific Importance	○	○	○	○
3)Experimental design	○	○	○	○
4) Adequacy of methods	○	○	○	○
5) Brevity and clarity	○	○	○	○
6) Overall priority for publication	○	○	○	○
7)Potential if adequately revised	○	○	○	○

• Comment to authors
Summarize the whole content of the manuscript in one sentence. Please make a specific comment according to the order of each section of the manuscript. Page mark is good to trace the review comment. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance should not be stated at the comment to authors. Consider if the peer review opinion may increase the quality of manuscript or further research by author.

• Comment to Editor
Both the strength and shortness of the manuscript are recommended to be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here including special opinion to Editor.

Ethical guideline for reviewers

• 1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
• 2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest as follows: (1) Reviewer is a competitor; (2) Reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s); (3) Reviewer may profit financially from the work. In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed. A history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not prohibit the review.
• 3. Reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.

Post-review work by the Editorial Office
Review opinions and decisions may be analyzed by the Editorial Office without identifying the reviewer. If a certificate of review is required, please contact the Editorial Office.