Principles of Peer Review Process

Evaluation Principles

1) Articles that have not been published before or that are not yet under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using Ithenticate (or others – Turnitin and Ithenticate) software.
3) Journal of General Medicine carries out a double-blind peer-review process. All studies will first be evaluated by the editor in terms of suitability for the journal. The articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert referees to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.
4) The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the articles independently of the authors' ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious belief and political philosophy. It ensures that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer-review.
5) Chief editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the articles. Editor's decision is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about articles written by them or their family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services of interest to the editor. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.
Reviewers should ensure that all information regarding the submitted articles remain confidential until the article is published, and should report any copyright infringement and plagiarism on the part of the author to the editor.
If the referee does not feel qualified about the subject of the article or if it does not seem possible to provide a timely response, he should notify the editor of this situation and ask him not to involve himself in the referee process.
During the evaluation process, the editor clearly states that the articles submitted for review to the referees are the exclusive property of the authors and this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with other people. Care should be taken to keep the identities of the referees confidential.

Evaluation process

Refereeing Type: Double Blind
Double Blind: After plagiarism check, eligible articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief for originality, methodology, importance of the topic covered, and compatibility with the journal scope. The editor ensures that the articles go through a fair double-blind review and, if the article complies with the formal principles, s/he submits the incoming article to at least two referees from the country and / or abroad, and if the referees deem it necessary, the editors approve the publication after the requested changes are made by the authors.
Review Time: 15 days
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Time in Review: The time until the first decision for research articles that are taken to the referee process for review in the Journal of General Medicine varies between approximately 1-3 months.
Acceptance Rate: We publish approximately 50% of the articles that reach our journal. About one-third of all submissions are sent back to the author without being submitted for peer-review.
Plagiarism Check: Yes – Turnitin/Ithenticate scans articles for plagiarism prevention.
Number of Reviewers Reviewing Each Article: At least two
Allowed Time: 10 days. This period can be extended by adding 25 days.
Decision: In order for the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor, at least two referees must make an acceptance decision.
Suspected Ethical Violation: Reviewers should report the situation to the Editor when they suspect a research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the research article on the day it is sent, and if he thinks the article is worthy of further consideration, he sends it to the assistant editor for further review. For research articles, the assistant editor usually reads each article from beginning to end. We aim for an initial decision on all articles within two or three weeks, but usually the initial decision is made within a few days of submission. If the Journal of General Medicine is not considered to be the correct journal for the study, we promptly notify the authors so that they can submit their work to another journal without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the subject being outside the scope of the journal.
The next step for your research paper is our Editorial Board meeting. Members will read your article and discuss its importance, originality and scientific quality. We mainly focus on the research question to make editorial decisions for research articles. Even if the subject of the article is relevant to the scope of the journal, current and important, we can reject the article if there is no research question. Of course, study will be rejected if it has serious defects. Everyone attending the article meeting is asked to declare relevant conflict of interests at the outset, and anyone with a significant conflict of interest either leaves the room or speaks last while the relevant article is being discussed (depending on the nature and scope of their interest).
If your article is eligible for the Journal of General Medicine, the section editor will send your article to two external reviewers. Reviewers advise the editors, who will make the final decision. We ask the referees to approve their reports and declare any conflicts of interest on the article we send them. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after the external referee evaluation processes.
Some articles may also be viewed by the ethics editor of the Journal of General Medicine and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor in cases where serious research misconduct is suspected.
For all articles, we aim to reach a final decision on publication within 8-12 weeks after submission. If we propose a publication subject to revision, we usually ask the authors to revise and upload their articles to the system within the next month.
Acceptedarticles are published at https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/geneltip#in_press_articles_tab as they are prepared. After publication, articles are selected for the next issue. The Journal of General Medicine provides open access to articles as part of its dedication to readers and authors. All of our articles are freely available online. If you notice any errors in your published article, email the editor-in-chief who will let you know if corrections will be made.
Principles of the Peer Review Process for the Work of the Editorial Staff
Editorial articles and analysis articles written by the own editors of the Journal of General Medicine are not subject to external peer review. Original research articles, on the other hand, are sent to at least two external referees within the scope of blind refereeing. During this time, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Authors Responsibilities

The author must comply with research and publication ethics.
The author should not attempt to publish the same study in more than one journal.
The author should fully indicate the works he has used in the writing of the article in the reference.
Editor's Responsibilities
The editor evaluates the articles in terms of scientific content, regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief or political opinion of the authors.
The editor makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential and this is a privileged interaction. The referees and editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people. Anonymity of referees should be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share one reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or implement a withdrawal as necessary.
Editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees. Only the referee has full authority to appoint and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Responsibilities of the Referees

Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders.
The evaluations of the referees should be objective.
The language and style used by the referees should not be offensive to the author.
Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the study they are reviewing.
A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that s/he will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article? / Is the method coherent and clearly defined? / Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?
"Preliminary Review Form", "Article Evaluation Form" and "Book Review Evaluation Form" used in the Journal of General Medicine can be viewed on the journal website.

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening

Study; is reviewed by the editor for compliance with publication principles of the journal, academic writing rules and APA Citation System, and is screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate or Turnitin program. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 20% (excluding references). Even though the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author:
Citation: If a reference is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is lined up with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given.
Domain Editor Review
The study, which has passed the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening phase, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language-style. This review will be completed in a maximum of 10 days.

Referee Process (Academic Evaluation)

The study, which passes the review of the field editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The review process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind review practice. The referee is requested to either state his opinion and opinion on the study he has examined on the text or justify it with a minimum 150-word explanation on the online referee form. If the author does not agree with the referee's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. Domain editor provides mutual communication between the author and referee, while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. The publication of book and symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis abstracts is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or editorial board members).

Correction Stage

If the referees want correction in the text they have examined, the relevant reports are sent to the author and he is asked to correct his study. The author makes corrections with the "Track Changes" feature turned on in the Word program or indicates the changes in the text with a different color. The author submits the edited text to the field editor.

Field Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Referee Control

The referee requesting correction checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.
Turkish Language Control
Studies that pass the peer-review process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Check

The studies that pass the Turkish language control are reviewed by the English Language Editor and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review

The articles that have passed technical, academic and linguistic examinations are examined by the Editorial Board, and are decided whether they will be published or not, and if they will be published, in which issue they will be included. The Board decides by majority vote. In the event of equal votes, the final decision is made in the direction of the editor's decision.
Typesetting and Layout Phase
The typesetting and layout of the works decided to be published by the Editorial Board are made ready for publication and sent to the author for review. This stage lasts for a maximum of 15 days.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes

The data of the published issue is transmitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.