All manuscripts submitted to the Karaelmas Journal of Occupational Health and Safety (KJOHS) are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process to ensure scientific impartiality and independence. Under this system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. All procedures related to the evaluation process are conducted through the DergiPark platform.

Preliminary Evaluation

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are first subject to a preliminary evaluation by the editorial team. At this stage, the manuscript is examined in terms of:

• Its compliance with the aims and scope of the journal,
• Its adherence to the principles of research and publication ethics,
• Its originality and potential scientific contribution,
• Its conformity with the journal’s author guidelines,
• The adequacy of the Turkish and English abstracts,
• The availability of ethics committee approval and other required documents,
• Its similarity report,
• Its linguistic, stylistic, and formal quality.

Manuscripts that fall outside the aims and scope of the journal, are deemed unsuitable for scientific or ethical evaluation, lack the required documentation, or substantially fail to comply with the journal’s author guidelines may be returned to the authors or rejected by the editorial team without being sent for peer review. Manuscripts containing formal deficiencies may also be returned to the authors for the necessary revisions.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary evaluation are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected by considering their academic expertise, scholarly background, publication record, impartiality, and the absence of any conflict of interest concerning the manuscript under evaluation.

Wherever possible, reviewers are selected from institutions different from those of the authors and from among scholars possessing appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers who believe that they have a conflict of interest are expected to inform the editorial team and decline the invitation to review.

When a manuscript is submitted by an editor, editorial board member, or any other person serving on one of the journal’s boards, that individual is excluded from all editorial procedures relating to the manuscript. Such submissions are subject to the same scientific evaluation criteria as all other manuscripts and are reviewed by independent external reviewers.

Scientific Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts not only in terms of formal requirements but also with regard to their scientific content. Within this framework, reviewers assess:

• The originality of the study and its contribution to the field,
• The clarity of the research problem and objectives,
• The adequacy of the conceptual and theoretical framework,
• The use of relevant national and international literature,
• The suitability of the research methodology,
• The adequacy of the population, sample, data collection instruments, and methods of analysis,
• The accuracy and clarity of the presentation of findings,
• The consistency of the discussion and conclusion with the findings,
• The appropriateness of tables, figures, and references,
• Compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations using the journal’s reviewer evaluation form and to provide scientific justification for their recommendations. Where necessary, reviewers may also submit annotated manuscript files or supplementary documents containing comments and revision suggestions.

Reviewer Recommendations

Following their evaluation, reviewers may make one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision,
• Accept after minor revisions,
• Reconsider after major revisions,
• Reject.

For a manuscript to be considered for publication, it must receive favorable scientific evaluations from at least two reviewers. Where reviewer opinions differ, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer, or the editorial team may reach a decision by evaluating the scientific reasoning presented in the reviewer reports. Additional reviewer opinions may also be sought where deemed necessary.

Reviewer reports serve as scientific recommendations to the editorial team. The final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, reconsideration, or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editorial team. In reaching its decision, the editorial team considers the reviewer reports together with the scientific quality of the manuscript, its ethical compliance, and the journal’s editorial policies.

Revision and Re-evaluation

When revisions are requested by the reviewers or the editorial team, the reviewer reports are communicated to the authors without disclosing the reviewers’ identities. Authors are normally expected to complete the requested revisions within 30 days and upload the following documents to the DergiPark system:

• The revised manuscript,
• A detailed response letter addressing the reviewer comments,
• A version of the manuscript in which the revisions can be clearly identified,
• Any additional documents requested by the editorial team.

Authors are required to respond separately to each reviewer comment. Where a requested revision is not implemented, the authors must provide a clear scientific justification.

Authors requiring additional time to complete the revisions should contact the editorial team before the revision deadline expires.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers or evaluated directly by the editorial team. Where the requested revisions are found to be insufficient, further revisions may be requested. More than one round of revision may be conducted where necessary.

Acceptance, Language Editing, and Production

Manuscripts that successfully complete the peer review process undergo a final evaluation by the editorial team. A manuscript is considered formally accepted only after an official acceptance decision has been issued by the editorial team.

Accepted manuscripts are prepared for publication through the following stages:

• Language and stylistic editing,
• Verification of references and in-text citations,
• Review of tables and figures,
• Compliance with the journal template,
• Typesetting and layout,
• Proofreading.

At these stages, manuscripts may be returned to the authors for the correction of formal or technical deficiencies.

The issue in which an accepted manuscript will be published is determined according to editorial planning, the number of manuscripts awaiting publication, the readiness of the manuscript for production, and technical considerations. Acceptance of a manuscript does not necessarily guarantee its publication in the immediately following issue.

Evaluation Period

The duration of the preliminary evaluation, reviewer selection, completion of reviewer reports, revision rounds, language editing, and typesetting may vary from one manuscript to another. The overall evaluation period may depend on:

• The subject and nature of the manuscript,
• The availability of suitable reviewers,
• The time required by reviewers to complete their evaluations,
• The extent of the requested revisions,
• The number of revision rounds,
• The editorial and technical workload of the journal.

For this reason, the journal does not guarantee a fixed or identical evaluation or publication period for all manuscripts.

Authors may monitor the current status of their manuscripts through the DergiPark system. Necessary notifications and revision requests are communicated to the authors through the same platform.

Confidentiality and Ethical Principles

Manuscripts under evaluation are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers may not share the manuscripts or any unpublished information contained therein with third parties, nor may they use such information for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively, impartially, scientifically, and constructively. The personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, academic title, political views, or intellectual orientation of the authors must not influence the evaluation.

If reviewers identify a scientific or ethical concern, conflict of interest, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, or any other suspected breach of publication ethics, they are expected to inform the editorial team. Where an ethical violation is suspected, the editorial team may initiate an investigation and suspend the evaluation process until the matter has been resolved.

Transparency and Responsibility

KJOHS endeavours to keep authors informed at the relevant stages of the evaluation process. The submission and acceptance dates of published articles are clearly indicated in the article information.

The scientific, ethical, legal, and linguistic responsibility for articles published in the journal rests with the authors. Publication of an article does not imply that the views expressed in the manuscript are endorsed by the journal’s editorial team, editorial board, or publisher.