Peer Review Policy

Double-blind peer-review system is applied in JICM Journal, and studies are sent to at least three reviewers unaware of each other.

Descriptive information about the author(s) in the work file sent by the author is extracted and uploaded to the system by including this information only on the cover page.

If this information is forgotten in the full text, it is removed by the editors and then sent to the reviewers.
Studies submitted to the journal are evaluated within 15 days at the latest and the author is informed.
The article may be rejected with the opinion of the journal editor and assistant editors during the article submission stage for the publication of the study.
Articles that pass the spelling and grammar check in the pre-control stage are then directed to the reviewer evaluation by the editor.
The evaluation and publication process of case reports is at the discretion of the section editor.
If the article is in a foreign language, it is sent to the journal language editors registered on the Dergipark site or to contracted foreign language editors for language editing after the spelling rules inspection and before the referee evaluation.
The time given to the reviewers for evaluation is 15 days.
Authors are allowed to make changes on their documents in line with the recommendations of the reviewers.
The Dergipark system does not give authors the right to make changes on their documents before the reviewer evaluation is over.
The reviewers can see the work file sent by the author only if they accept the evaluation.
If any of the reviewers has made a major revision decision for an article that has been sent to peer-review, the editors examine the situation in detail in terms of the degree and applicability of the criticism/revisions, and if necessary, they can make a rejection decision at this step.
After the evaluation of the article from all three reviewers, they are sent to the author together.
Reviewer evaluations are shared with the author in accordance with the blind peer-review system.
Authors are given 4 weeks for minor and major reviewer suggestions.
The responsible author of the article is informed three times about the technical correction and spelling rules, but if the desired correction is not made, the article is removed from the evaluation process and this issue is conveyed to the author.
If there are two changes in the reviewers determined for the article accepted for the publication process, the section editor becomes the reviewer to evaluate the relevant article without sending it to another reviewer for the third time.
Corrections from the author are checked by the relevant editor.
If one of the reviewers requests a revision, the revised article is also sent to the approving reviewer.
Taking into account all these processes, the editor informs the author of his absolute decision regarding the publication or rejection of the article.
In all the articles that have undergone peer-review, the reviewer's opinions are conveyed to the author in accordance with the double-blind peer-review system, whether the article is accepted or rejected.
For an article to be accepted for publication, it is sufficient to receive an "approval" from at least two (2) reviewers.
If two of the three reviewers decide to reject and one to approve or request major or minor revision, the article is rejected.
B If one reviewer rejects and the other two request major or minor revisions or decide to approve, the article is sent back to the reviewers.
The author/authors are not informed about the issue on which the accepted article will be published.
The order of publication of accepted articles is determined according to the order of acceptance.
The final version of the accepted article is sent to the responsible author for approval before it is published as a pdf template.
Special care is taken to include data from a maximum of 5 years ago in published articles.
While responding to the reviewers on the Dergipark page, the authors are requested to upload the article revision response letters to the system by specifying these reviewers in a different color for each reviewer and in the relevant correction text.

Responsibilities of the Editor and the Reviewer

• The editor rejects the articles that are considered unsuitable for publication in the journal, with the decision of the editor and the section editor, before they are sent to the reviewers,
• The editor examines the decisions about the articles from the field editors and conveys the decision to the section editors with the Secretariat.
• ONE (1) assistant editor serves in each committee, one person responsible for the scientific content and index committee, and one person responsible for the web and archive committee,
• The term of office of assistant editors is three (3) years.
• The assistant editor responsible for scientific content makes a preliminary evaluation of the articles submitted to the Dergipark system. He/She evaluates the spelling rules and gives corrections to the article. It makes the necessary warnings and rejects the articles that do not make the corrections. The scientific evaluation process is initiated by directing the texts whose originality is sufficient and which meet the application requirements to the field editors.
• The editor appoints the relevant section editor according to the subject areas of the articles and arranges the distribution and number of articles among the section editors.
• The assistant editor responsible for technical affairs plans and conducts the quarterly publication process of the journal together with the editor and the section editor.
• The section editors follow the application through the Dergipark system and direct it to the reviewers. The reviewers inform the author of the evaluation result of the article within at least six (6) months after their return.
• Delays caused by the author regarding the fulfillment of the revision request are considered as a reason for the rejection of the article.
• Each article text is reviewed by three (3) independent reviewers who are experts in their field and the texts that are found suitable for publication are forwarded to the editor-in-chief after the approval of the section editor. The final decision in the publication of the article belongs to the editor-in-chief.
• Our reviewers are given four (4) weeks to respond to the evaluation invitations sent.
• Our reviewers are given 15 days to evaluate the article. The reviewers who do not accept the evaluation of the article three times in a row or who evaluate it late are removed from the JICM Dergipark referee pool.