The publication processes at Anatolian Clinic the Journal of Medical Sciences are designed to ensure the objective, reputable, and high-quality production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Our rigorous evaluation stages directly enhance the academic merit of the published studies. Peer-reviewed publications serve as the cornerstone of the scientific method; therefore, it is mandatory for all stakeholders—including authors, researchers, reviewers, editors, and the publisher—to adhere strictly to high ethical standards. The Journal expects all parties to operate with this sense of responsibility within the framework of publication ethics.

Our journal identifies the ethical duties and responsibilities based on the core principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), provided as open-access guidelines.

The Double-Blinded Peer Review Process

The primary condition for submission is that the research must not have been previously published elsewhere or be under simultaneous consideration by another journal. Authors must declare their approval of the content, disclose all potential conflicts of interest, and certify that the research was conducted in compliance with international ethical standards. Should any suspicion of ethical misconduct arise, the Editorial Board will manage the process according to COPE guidelines.

The journal’s publication policy is shaped by the recommendations of the Editorial and Publication Boards and aligns fully with the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals." To maintain total objectivity, all submissions undergo a double-blind peer review process through the following stages:

1. Manuscript Submission: The author submits the manuscript via the Dergipark online system.

2. Editorial Preliminary Check: The manuscript is reviewed for compliance with formatting rules; no scientific content analysis is performed at this stage.

3. Editor-in-Chief Review: The Editor-in-Chief assigns a Field Editor to manage the process. The Field Editor assesses the study's originality; non-original studies are rejected immediately.

4. Reviewer Invitation: The Section Editor invites at least two subject-matter experts. In case of conflicting opinions, a third reviewer may be consulted.

5. Reviewer Response: Reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest under strict confidentiality.

6. Review: Reviewers submit their reports and recommendations within 15 days. If revisions (major or minor) are requested, the corrected text may be re-evaluated by the reviewers.

7. Decision Mechanism: The Field Editor synthesizes the reports to reach a preliminary conclusion. The Editor-in-Chief may request additional opinions if the reports are contradictory.

8. Notification: The final decision and anonymized reviewer reports are sent to the author through the digital system.

9. Publication Preparation: Accepted papers proceed through language editing, final proofreading, layout, and early access publication before being assigned to a specific issue.

• Final copy submission
• Page design (Mizanpaj)
• Proofreading / Corrections 
• Uploading upcoming posts as "Early Access" or "Ahead of Print" 
• Issue compilation 
• Table of Contents arrangement 
• Online publication and printing 

Our scientific board consists of esteemed national and international experts. In addition to content review, all research articles are rigorously examined by a statistical editor.

Human and Animal Research

Compliance with the Helsinki Declaration (2013) and ethical committee approval is mandatory for all experimental and clinical drug research involving humans. For animal studies, authors must certify adherence to the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" and obtain local ethics committee approval. All relevant documents must be uploaded during submission.

Ethical approval and informed consent must be explicitly stated in the "Materials and Methods" section. Authors must disclose financial support and conflicts of interest both on the title page and at the end of the manuscript.

Plagiarism and Ethical Violations

To preserve academic integrity, all submissions are screened via intihal.net before publication. Authors must strictly avoid the following:

    Plagiarism: Reusing another's content without proper attribution.

    Fabrication: Creating and publishing non-existent data or results.

    Duplication: Republication of the same data across different platforms or languages.

    Salami-slicing: Fragmenting a single study’s results into multiple publications to inflate academic metrics.

    Data Manipulation: Falsifying or distorting data to influence the research outcome.

Anatolian Clinic the Journal of Medical Sciences does not tolerate unethical practices such as "gift authorship," inappropriate acknowledgments, or attempts to influence the review process through non-compliant references.

Handling Misconduct and Editorial Autonomy

In proven cases of scientific misconduct or plagiarism, the publisher—in collaboration with the editors—will take all necessary legal actions, including retraction or correction. The Journal guarantees editorial autonomy, ensuring decisions are made independently of commercial interests or external pressures.

Duties of Editors

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the entirety of the journal's editorial processes and remains committed to addressing the needs of both readers and authors. Legal requirements (including copyright, plagiarism, and defamation) and scientific merit are the primary determinants in the selection of manuscripts for publication. By managing a fair and objective peer-review process, the Editors guarantees the overall quality and integrity of the publication.

• Publication Decision: They decide which manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published based on the study's scientific validity, significance, and alignment with the journal’s scope.
• Impartiality and Fair Play: They evaluate all submissions solely on their academic merit, regardless of the authors' race, gender, religious beliefs, or political views.
• Confidentiality: They ensure that information regarding a manuscript under review is not shared with anyone other than the authors and the assigned reviewers.
• Conflict of Interest: Editors who have a conflict of interest with the authors or the study must recuse themselves from the decision-making process for that specific manuscript.
• Ethical Oversight: They rigorously investigate any suspicions of ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or redundant publication, and take necessary corrective actions.

Duties of Reviewers 

Reviewers are volunteer experts who evaluate the scientific quality of manuscripts through a "Double-Blind Peer Review" process.

• Academic Contribution: They assist the editor in the decision-making process and provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.
• Punctuality: Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or cannot perform the evaluation within the specified timeframe must notify the editor and withdraw from the process.
• Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and should not be shared with third parties.
• Objectivity: Critiques must be expressed objectively, supported by scientific evidence, and written in a professional, polite tone.
• Disclosure of References: They should identify relevant published study that has not been cited by the authors and report any inconsistencies between the text and the references.

Duties of Authors

Authors bear the primary responsibility for the accuracy and ethical compliance of the study they present.

• Reporting Standards: They must present an honest account of the results of original research and discuss its significance objectively.
• Originality and Plagiarism: They guarantee that the study is entirely original, has not been published elsewhere in any language, and that the ideas of others are appropriately cited.
• Data Access: Authors must be prepared to provide the raw data of the study for editorial review if requested.
• Authorship Rights: They ensure that authorship is limited only to individuals who have made a significant and substantial contribution to the design, execution, or interpretation of the study.
• Notification of Fundamental Errors: If an author discovers a significant error in their published study, they are obligated to promptly notify the editor and cooperate in the issuance of an erratum or the retraction of the paper.