The International Journal of Tokat Medical Sciences (formerly the Gaziosmanpaşa University Faculty of Medicine Journal) implements a rigorous peer-review process in which scientific manuscripts are critically evaluated by subject-matter experts prior to publication. This evaluation process is both essential and indispensable for ensuring the scientific rigor and overall quality of the submitted manuscripts.
The evaluation of manuscripts submitted to our journal is carried out through a two-stage process consisting of an internal editorial review and an external peer review. Immediately after a scientific manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief or the Associate Editors assess its suitability for the journal’s aims and scope, as well as its adherence to ethical standards in research and writing. Manuscripts deemed appropriate in accordance with the journal’s publication policy are then forwarded to reviewers through the relevant section editors for detailed editorial assessment. The responsibilities of the editor are outlined below:
Editor’s Responsibilities
1. The editor evaluates manuscripts solely on the basis of their scholarly content, without regard to the authors’ ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious beliefs, or political philosophy.
2. The editor ensures that manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a fair and impartial double-blind peer-review process and guarantees that all information related to submitted manuscripts remains confidential prior to publication.
3. The editor informs reviewers that the manuscripts constitute confidential material and that their interaction with such content is privileged. Reviewers and members of the editorial board are not permitted to discuss the manuscripts with others. The editor safeguards reviewer anonymity. In specific circumstances, the editor may share a reviewer’s comments with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
4. The editor holds responsibility for the content and overall quality of the journal. When necessary, issuing a correction notice or initiating a retraction also falls within the editor’s responsibilities.
5. The editor does not allow any conflicts of interest among authors, editors, or reviewers. The editor has exclusive authority in assigning reviewers and bears final responsibility for decisions regarding the publication of manuscripts in the Journal.
Manuscript Review Process
1. Editor-in-Chief - Associate Editor Review: Immediately after submission, the Editor-in-Chief - Associate Editor conducts a preliminary check of the manuscript for suitability with the journal’s aims and scope and for adherence to ethical standards in research and reporting.
2. Internal Review — Publication Board Assessment: (A form of referee review) This stage involves evaluation by an Associate Editor and a Section Editor (two internal reviewers) appointed by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors according to the manuscript’s scientific content and the subject-matter expertise of the section editors. At this stage the manuscript is assessed with respect to its topic, methodology, and results, and a decision is made whether it should proceed to a full external peer review.
3. External Review — Manuscript Evaluation (Type of Review: Double-Blind Peer Review): Two external reviewers are appointed at this stage. The Section Editor selects two external referees from researchers who have conducted work on the manuscript’s topic. If suitable reviewers with relevant research on the topic cannot be found, referees are chosen from researchers holding doctoral degrees in the relevant field. Reviewers provide detailed evaluations of the manuscript’s topic, methodology, and results, and submit their recommendations regarding whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication.
Mutual Duties and Responsibilities in the Peer-Review Process
The duties and responsibilities of editors toward reviewers are as follows:
1. Editors must select reviewers whose expertise is appropriate for the subject matter of the manuscript.
2. Editors are responsible for providing reviewers with the information and guidelines they may require during the evaluation process.
3. Editors must ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
4. Editors must maintain the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities in accordance with the principles of blind peer review.
5. Editors should encourage reviewers to evaluate manuscripts using an impartial, scientific, and objective tone.
6. Editors should establish policies and practices aimed at enhancing reviewer performance.
7. The reviewer pool should be updated regularly based on scientific competence and performance.
8. Editors must prevent non-scientific or inappropriate evaluations.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
The evaluation of all submissions through the “blind peer-review” process directly influences the quality of the journal. This process ensures credibility by enabling an objective and independent assessment of manuscripts. The International Journal of Tokat Medical Sciences (formerly the Gaziosmanpaşa University Faculty of Medicine Journal) conducts its review process in accordance with the principles of double-blind peer review. Reviewers may not communicate directly with authors; all evaluations and comments are transmitted through the journal’s management system. During this process, reviewer comments on evaluation forms and full texts are conveyed to the author(s) by the editor.
Accordingly, reviewers who evaluate manuscripts for the journal are expected to adhere to the following ethical responsibilities:
1. Reviewers should agree to evaluate a manuscript only if it aligns with their area of expertise.
2. They must conduct their evaluations impartially and confidentially.
3. If reviewers believe they may encounter a conflict of interest during the evaluation, they should decline to review the manuscript and inform the journal editor.
4. Reviews should be conducted objectively, focusing solely on the content of the manuscript. Nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political views, or commercial interests must not influence the evaluation.
5. Reviews must be written in a constructive and scientific tone. Hostile, defamatory, insulting, or derogatory personal remarks should not be included.
6. Reviewers must complete evaluations in a timely manner and in accordance with the above ethical principles.
If both reviewer reports are positive, the manuscript is accepted for publication upon the decision of the Editor-in-Chief. If one of the two reviewers submits a negative recommendation, the manuscript is referred to a third reviewer. Manuscripts may be published only if at least two reviewers recommend acceptance. Throughout the entire process, external reviewers do not learn the identity of the author, and authors do not learn the identities of the reviewers.


Preparation of the Manuscript for Publication
Manuscripts accepted for publication are read once more by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors. They are then submitted to the Language Editor for English language editing. At this stage, the final version of the manuscript also undergoes a similarity check. Revisions may be requested from the author at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, or the Language Editor. Once revisions are completed, the manuscript is forwarded to typesetting by the Editor-in-Chief. The issue in which the typeset manuscript will be published is then scheduled by the Editor-in-Chief.

Review Timeline: Pre-Publication
Number of Reviewers: Two internal reviewers (Editorial Assessment — Associate Editor and Section Editors); two external reviewers (Peer Review)
Author–Reviewer Interaction: All interactions between editors, reviewers, and authors are mediated by the editors.
Reviewer Interaction: Reviewers may communicate only with the editors.
Plagiarism Prevention Similarity Check: Conducted via iThenticate.