The Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are subjected to double-blinded peer-review.

The corresponding author submits the paper via Dergipark online system to the journal.

Editorial Office control the manuscript according to the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and styles. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point. Submission is considered on the conditions that papers are previously unpublished and are not offered simultaneously elsewhere; that authors have read and approved the content, and all authors have also declared all competing interests; and that the work complies with the ethical approval requirements and has been conducted under internationally accepted ethical standards. If ethical misconduct is suspected, the Editorial Board will act in accordance with the relevant international rules of publication ethics (i.e., COPE guidelines).

Editorial policies of the journal are conducted as stated in the rules recommended by the Council of Science Editors and reflected in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Accordingly, authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to adhere to the best practice guidelines on ethical behavior contained in this statement.

All manuscripts are reviewed by the editor, section associate editors, and at least two internal and external expert reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief assigns submission to Section Editor and the Section Editor sends invitations to the reviewers. Potential reviewers consider the invitation as anonymous against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline.

The Section Editor considers all the returned reviews (at least two different reviewer decisions) before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision. Then, the Section Editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments as anonymous.

If accepted, the paper is sent to language Editor. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Section Editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the Section Editor.