Peer Review Guide

Abant Medical Journal reviewers are required to confirm the following items:
• All articles should be reviewed legally based on the intellectual content of the article.
• Reviews should be objective and constructive, avoiding being hostile or provocative and making libelous or offensive comments.
• To make a comprehensive review, the authors should have the required field expertise and should only review articles that can be evaluated on time.
• Any conflict of interest detected during the review process must be reported to Abant Medical Journal editors.
• All information about the article should be kept confidential.
• Information obtained during the review process should not be used for the benefit of the reviewers themselves or any other person, the organization, or to put others at a disadvantage position or to discredit them.
• Any information that may be the reason for the rejection of the publication of an article should be reported to Abant Medical Journal editors.

To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:
• Login with your ID and password.
• Enter the Journal Panel of Abant Medical Journal from My Journals section.
Log in to the reviewer panel.
• Click the title of the article which be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
• Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask to you in the page that will pop-up.
• For the accept of peer review please click the “Accept the Review” that in the green section.
• You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
• After reviewing the article, please fill the review form in the “Reviews” section.
• Upload the review file if there is.
• Lastly click the button “Send the Review” that spotting right side of the page.

Peer Reviewing Processes
In the Abant Medical Journal, the reviewers are selected from among the experts of the subjects covered in the articles. All selected reviewers are informed about the responsibilities of the reviewers and the ethical principles, article evaluation criteria and procedure of the Abant Medical Journal.
• Reviewer, must take into account after accept peer reviewing on the system “Responsibilities of reviewer and ethical principles to be followed” and “Reviewing Processes”.
• Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.
• Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewer who accept the review are expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 7 days is given to the reviewers who does not complete the review process within this period, if the reviewer requests. If the reviewers does not request additional time, a new reviewers can be appointed.
• Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.
• In this review form, the referees are expected to express their opinions on the following issues:
1. Is the study prepared in accordance with scientific publication ethics?
2. General Assessment (10: High; 0: Low)
3. Does the title reflect the subject matter of the article clearly and exactly?
4. Does the abstract reflect the aim scope and conclusions of the article?
5. Are the materials & methods adequate and properly described?
6. Are the results, conclusions and interpretations sufficient?
7. Are the references properly cited?
8. Does the discussion identify sources of error and weaknesses that may affect the results of the research?
9. Does the article have an original contribution to knowledge and the field?
10. Does the language, style and clarity of presentation sufficient?
11. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding the article?
12. I would like to see the corrected version of the article

• The reviewers give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options Yes, No, Partially (for some questions), Not applicable (for some questions). The reviewers do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, the suggestions regarding the parts given as No and Partially, and other suggestions to the author, should be stated in the "Suggestions to Author" section.
• After completing this form, the referees can take the following decisions:
o Revise Manuscript (Major Revision)
o Revise Manuscript (Minor Revision).
o Reject.
o Accept.
• Abant Medical Journal conducts two external peer-reviewers outside of the editorial board of the journal.
• If one of the peer review reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer.
• A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance.
• If one of the peer review reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. The article is rejected or sent to a third peer reviewer depending on the opinion of the reviewer who has issued the report with "Major Revision" requirement.
• The reviewer requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. An additional 15 days are given to the reviewer for this evaluation.
• Reviewers can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section for further guidance or to report any suspected violations. Correspondence here is not seen by the authors.
• The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.
• Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the reviewer should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise (https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest).
• Reviewers cannot make use of the data of the articles they have reviewed before they are published or share this data with others.
• The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are not disclosed/published.