This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of the journal. All of the journal's contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

Double Blind Peer Review

AGMR adopts double blind review, which means that the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa.

The Role of Reviewers

Peer-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 conflict 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.

Peer Review Process

Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief checks whether a manuscript submitted online fulfills the submission guidelines; if it does, Associate Editors are appointed.

Associate Editor
The Associate Editor appoints two reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field, making a total of three reviewers.

Reviewer
The reviewers choose an appropriate course of action from the following list of options: ① Accept, ② Minor revisions, ③ Major revisions, ④ Reject.

Associate Editor
The Associate Editors will make the final decision by collecting the reviewers' recommendations and forwarding them to the Editor-in-Chief. If one or more reviewers have recommended that the submission be rejected, an additional reviewer can be appointed, or the submission can be rejected.

Editorial Committee
The Editorial Committee reviews the results and decides whether or not to publish the article. If the Editorial Committee decides to accept the manuscript, it will be published after an English editing and correction process.

All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed the same as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the decision process. Editors will not handle their own manuscripts although they are commissioned ones.

When You Received the Paper

Please read the paper carefully and send us your comments in accordance with the guidelines below. If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14 days of review period, please decline to review or ask for extension of the review period. If there is no review comment within the 7 days from acceptance to review, the reviewer will be given a notice.

• How to write review comments

After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download PDF files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to t comment on the style and format, but just concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.
- Review table with 7 items is also provided for the reviewer’s convenience as follows:

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 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.

Review Guideline

Table of review guideline
To ensure that reviews are objective, online review guidelines are used to assess various elements, including the title, introduction, methods, results, discussion, organization, abstract, and references.

1	Title	Length and the substance of the title are both adequate.
2	Abstract	Abstract is structured of 250 words or less and states the purpose of the study, methods, results, and conclusion.
3	Introduction	Research objectives of the study are well-stated, specific, and significant.
4	Methods	Study design including sample selection and material choice is appropriate. Statistical method is pertinent to the study design.
5	Results	Results are clearly stated and are presented in logical sequence.
6	Discussion	The new and important aspects of the study are emphasized; the mechanism and/or possible explanation of the findings are well explored. The results are well compared or contrasted with other relevant studies. Implication of the study is well-presented.
7	Conclusion	Conclusion is clearly stated. Conclusion is adequately supported by the date, and follows the logic of the full study.
8	References	Style and format of the references meet the standards of the Journal. Numbers of citation are appropriate.
9	Tables	Information is displayed concisely and efficiently.
10	Figures/Illustrations	Images are high quality and the legends are clearly and simply stated. If any, please indicate figure(s)/photograph(s) that should be printed in colors.
11	Citation	When to cite a table and figure from another source, the authors acknowledged their source in a note below the table or figure.
12	Ethics	The authors noted the permission from the Ethical Committee or IRB, Ethics in the manuscript (only for original articles)

Additional considerations
The following are also considered when deciding whether to accept a submission or to recommend revisions:

① The topic of the manuscript and/or the age of the participants are appropriate for the field of geriatrics.
② The title represents the content of the paper.
③ The introduction, methods, and results are presented in the right order.
④ The method is described in sufficient detail.
⑤ Eligibility and exclusion criteria are clearly stated.
⑥ The research objective and results are coherent.
⑦ The table and results are coherent.
⑧ An appropriate statistical method is used.
⑨ The order of results corresponds to the discussion.
⑩ The conclusion can be deduced from the research results (there is no jumping to conclusions).
⑪ The research limitations are noted.
⑫ Any there any ethical problems?
⑬ Is there unnecessary repetition (in particular, repetition in the introduction and discussion, or discussion and results)?
⑭ Is the length of the manuscript appropriate?

Consider other internationally used guidelines such as CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials), QUORUM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses), and STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) for different research designs.

Obligations

Basic principles
Reviewers should approach the task of reviewing with sincerity, and submit their reviews in a timely fashion.
If the reviewer believes that he or she is not the appropriate person to review a particular article, he or she must immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Fairness
A reviewer should treat all authors fairly. If there is any conflict of interest, immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Confidentiality
Except when asking for advice in relation to a review, the manuscript and its content should not be disclosed to a third party. The manuscript cannot be cited before publication. The review process is double blind, which means that a reviewer cannot contact the author. If a reviewer believes that contact with the author is necessary, then he or she should notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.