Ethical Policies of the Journal for Reviewers

Blinding: Reviewer identity is not shared with the author. To help us protect your identity, please do not reveal your name within the text of your review. It also implies you should not attempt to contact the author. Authors also remain confidential during the review process to reviewers. If the manuscript assigned to the reviewer is not blinded, the reviewer should inform the editorial board and must not review that manuscript. After the reviewer informs the editorial board, manuscript will be assigned to a different reviewer after proper blinding is ensued.

Plagiarism: If you have any serious concerns about a manuscript from a publication ethics perspective - for example if you believe you have encountered a case of plagiarism - you can contact the editorial office in confidence. All articles submitted to Journal is sent to reviewers after they are cleared by iThenticate.

Conflict of Interest: If you realize that a conflict of interest exists after the review process begins, please notify the handling editor immediately, so another reviewer can be solicited to review the manuscript.

Confidentiality: The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is inappropriate to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others before publication. There are some exceptions, if approved by the editor. One example is that the reviewer may ask a colleague to collaborate on a review. However, your collaborator on the review should also agree to maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be informed of the participation of this additional person.

Reviewer Conduct: As stated in the Uniform Requirements, "Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests." Knowledge of the content of confidential manuscripts should not be used for any other purpose unrelated to the reviewing of the manuscript.

Reporting Concerns: The reviewer also has the responsibility of noting any ethical concerns, not limited to but including suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.

Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.

Writing Your Report

Accessibility of reviewer’s comments

An author will only see the comments you have made that are specific to the author; sometimes the editor will edit them.

Dergipark System

·         In first part, a checklist system was used to facilitate your evaluation of the article.

·         In second part, you are expected to write your report in 2 separate textboxes in the Dergipark system.

·         It is for your benefit to write your comments to the editor and author in a word processor on your computer, and copy-paste them to these textboxes afterwards.

·         If you wish to write your comments into these textboxes online, be sure to save it in every 5-10 mins. After 15 mins of inactivity, system logs you out for security reasons and you may lose all unsaved work. Writing text is not accounted as an online activity by the system, and you may be logged out while writing.

·         Despite the option to upload the report as a word document, we strictly request you to paste your report to the appropriate textboxes. DO NOT UPLOAD an edited file.

We recommend you to use google chrome or mozilla firefox as your web browser to view web files without any problems

What do we expect?

·         In confidential comments to the Editor: Summarize your reasons for your recommendations. Explain your judgment. DO NOT COPY-PASTE comments to the author.

·         In comments to the Author: The comments to the author SHOULD NOT include any statements that indicate to the author your judgment as to the acceptability of the paper for publication. These comments should be stated in a constructive and helpful way. The reviewer should discuss the shortcomings and/or strengths of a study. 

·         We ask reviewers to help us to ensure that any studies published in Anatolian Journal of Emergency Medicine were conducted properly, scientifically credible, reported according to the appropriate guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, STARD, STROBE) and ethical.

·         We DO NOT ASK reviewers to judge on importance or breadth of appeal. The Editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript, based on the reviewers' comments.

·         Please browse our instructions for authors before writing your review, you may find it helpful.

·         A structured review report, as detailed below, will be much more helpful to the authors, and encouraged.

 Tips for a Structured Review Report

Quick Summary: Although it is not obligatory, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the beginning of your report. This serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and reassuring the author and editor that you have understood the article.

Presentation, Documentation and Language: The text must be well-written and easy to follow. Check if the vocabulary is appropriate. If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor.

Abstract

·         The abstract should be complete (thorough); present essential details and must reflect the content of the article.

·         All the information in the abstract must be present in the text. There must be no inconsistencies in detail between the abstract and the text.

·         Abstract should be structured as detailed in Instructions to Authors section.

·         The background should provide the context of why the study question is important. The study question should be clearly stated.

·         The methods should include study design, population and setting, number of participants, years of study, length of follow up, and main outcomes measures. 

o    For RCTs, who if anyone was blinded to the intervention/control should be specified, the intervention and control conditions should be defined, the number in each group should be specified, state whether the analysis was based on intention to treat, and provide the number lost to follow up. 

o    For systematic reviews/meta-analyses, see PRISMA for abstracts, must include years of search, data sources, number of studies included, types of study designs included, eligibility criteria, for synthesis/appraisal methods. 

o    Surveys should include the response rate.

·         The results in the abstract should be presented in sufficient and specific detail. Main results should be quantified (with 95% CIs if possible), the important dependent variables that are adjusted for listed, the actual results and/or absolute risk(s) provided, and the results should match what is presented in the main paper.

·         Major limitation(s) should be provided.

·         The conclusions in the abstract must be justified by the information in the abstract and the text. Conclusions should interpret the study based on the results presented, emphasizing what is new and potential implications.

·         A Discussion section is not expected in the Abstract.

Background

·         A three-paragraph structure should be used.

·         Background information on study subject (1st paragraph), context and the implications of the study (2nd paragraph) and the hypotheses and the goals of the study (3rd paragraph).

o    Background: Circumstances or historical context that set the stage and led authors to investigate the issue is described.

o    Context: What are its potential implications? How does it relate to issues raised in the first paragraph? Why the investigation is consequential? Why is this specific investigation the next logical step?

o    Hypothesis and Goals: Specific research objectives or hypothesis, and the primary outcome measure should be clearly depicted.

·         Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended.

·         Indicate how the literature was searched to determine whether the hypothesis had been addressed previously and, if it was addressed previously, why the current study was performed.

·         Results or conclusions should not be provided.

·         Should end with the research question which must be (research hypothesis where applicable) clear, concise, and complete.

Methods

The method section, is one of the most important sections in original research articles.  It should be organized with logical and sequential subheadings. The optimal subheading choices will vary with the analysis, but the following examples applicable to most clinical research:

·         Study design and setting 

o   Study design, setting, years of study, length of follow up, and outcome measures should be defined.

o   Is the design suitable for answering the question asked?

·         Selection of Participants

o   Study population, screening and enrollment methods, sampling method, study sample, randomization technique, and number of participants in each group should be described. All participants including patients, providers, and outcome assessors should be reported.

o   In survey studies, information concerning who implemented the survey and how it was performed should be specified.

• • Check that if numbers add up. "Lost to follow-up" should be defined.
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Inclusion criteria must be well reported. Reasons for exclusion should be defined. Remember: study participants are sampled from a population using inclusion criteria. Then, according to a new finding or event, they are excluded. Therefore, for e.g., Age over 18 may be an inclusion criterion but age below 18 is not an exclusion criterion since those patients were already not included.
• Sample size estimation: Details of sample size estimation, names of the tests and assumptions (previous research and values), and software (if relevant) is expected to be provided.
• Interventions: 
  • Details of data, measurements and evaluations, blinding of subjects, providers, outcome assessors, or data analysts should be provided.
  • Intent-to-treat analysis should be included if relevant.
  • Is there sufficient information present to replicate the research? The research design and data analysis procedures should be defined and clearly described, and must be sufficiently detailed to permit the study to replicated.

·         Methods and Measurements

o   How and when measurements were made should be discussed.

o   Precision and reliability of the measurements should be reported.

o   How were spurious or missing measurements handled?

• • Has the author been precise in describing measurements?

o   Who collected the data and how they collected it? How data were entered, checked, and processed.

• • The measurement instrument must be appropriate given the study's variables; the scoring method must be clearly defined.
  • Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Make and model of biochemical test devices, kits or imaging devices should be provided.
  • If the methods are new, are they explained in detail?
  • Does the article identify the procedures?
  • Details of the data collection method and types of data should be given.
  • Commercial Name, Version, Producer, City, Country information of the devices, kits, tests and statistical packages used must be provided.
• Is this information presented in an algorithmic and meaningful way?
•  

·         Outcomes: Describe the study's primary and secondary outcome measures, and if needed explain why they were chosen to address the study objective. When possible, use outcomes that have been previously validated, or provide evidence of your own efforts to validate the measure. Emphasize patient-centered outcomes (eg, pain, days off from work, death) over intermediate outcomes (eg, change in forced expiratory volume, change in asthma score).

·         Data Analysis: Detail the primary analysis and specify any software that was used, including the name of the software and the company that produces it. Provide references for any non-routine analytic methods. If appropriate, detail sensitivity analyses that explore how results change when assumptions about the investigation are modified.

·         Human studies: There should be an explicit statement of approval by an institutional review board (IRB) for studies directly involving human subjects or data about them. Written vs oral informed consent should be specified (with rare exception informed consent should be written). If authors do not have access to an IRB, research needs to be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. 

·         Compliance with manuscript writing guidelines: There should be a statement clarifying which guideline the authors have used while drafting their document according to the following list. They should comply with the ingredients of the guidelines.

Statistics

·         Are the statistics correct? You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted.

·         If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report that you did not evaluate this part of the study.

·         The following files can be found in Resources for Authors Page

o    The most common errors are described in Reviewer's quick guide to common statistical errors in scientific papers: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/ejvesstat.pdf

o    common statistical errors in scientific papers and can be

o    Check relevance with the SAMPL Guidelines: http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SAMPL-Guidelines-3-13-13.pdf

o    Check relevance with the Statistical Problems to Document and to Avoid Guideline: http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/Main/ManuscriptChecklist

Results

·         This is where the author(s) should explain in words what they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence.

·         Raw data/actual numbers for outcomes, not just percentages or ORs, should be presented. Numerators and denominators should be presented for percentages, at least in tables.

·         Comparison groups should be specified, for, e.g., OR, HR, etc.

o    For adjusted analyses, all factors adjusted for should be provided. Unadjusted or minimally adjusted analyses should be presented in addition to fully adjusted analyses.

o    95% CIs should be provided.

·         Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Discussion

·         Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable?

·         Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research?

·         If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately?

·         Are there any important works that have been omitted?

·         Does the article support or contradict previous theories?

·         Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Limitations: Limitations of the article should be presented in a separate paragraph, should be concise, brief and unbiased. It may have a separate title but not obligatory.

Figures, Pictures and Tables

·         Please check the specifications for Figures and Tables from Instructions to Authors before reviewing them.

·         Do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story?

·         Do the figures describe the data accurately?

·         Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.

·         If the picture or figure depicts a person, face, or imaging of a patient, check if it is clearly depersonated and sensitive information is removed.

References

o    Please check the specifications for References from Instructions to Authors before reviewing them.

o    Reviewers are expected to check the referenced articles for appropriate referencing.

o    Are the references accurate?

Explain your judgement: Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

Revision Requests: If possible, make specific recommendations for revisions.