Article Evaluation Process

Double-blind peer-review system is applied in JICM Journal, and studies are sent to at least three reviewers unaware of each other.
None of the authors and reviewers can have information about the others during the process.
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.
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.