Manuscript Review Guidelines
• The double-blind peer-review system is implemented in our journal. Maximum attention should be paid to the specified deadlines for reviewer invitation and evaluation. The deadline for invitation acceptance is set at a maximum of 7 days, and for evaluation, it is 14 days. It is recommended to contact the editorial board member who issued the invitation for any additional time requests. Objective, high-quality, and scientific evaluation is essential. Contacting authors during and after the evaluation process is a violation of ethical rules.
• The evaluation report, apart from multiple-choice questions, should be prepared in sufficient length, explanatory, constructive, and in English. Case presentation evaluation questions are prepared in accordance with the CARE system and are different from other article evaluation systems.
• Reviewers are expected to exercise maximum care regarding ethical violations and deficiencies, plagiarism, articles prepared with artificial intelligence, and the use of predatory journals as sources. It is recommended to contact the editorial board member who issued the invitation for the detection of these situations.
• It is expected that the manuscripts to be evaluated comply with the writing rules specified in the instructions to authors. Reviewers may suggest references that could contribute to the scientific content.
• We kindly request feedback from candidates who decline to review, if possible, regarding their reasons (such as lack of time, conflict of interest, not within their expertise, not interested). Independent individuals other than reviewers listed in our reviewer database may also be appointed as reviewers, and if they wish, they can register in this system.
• The peer-review processes are meticulously and objectively evaluated by editorial board members. As a result of these reviewer evaluation scores, successful reviewers will be periodically announced and rewarded with participation in our association's congresses, certificates, and gifts. It will be possible for our reviewers to be credited with the Turkish Medical Association's (TTB-STE/SMG) points.
• Our reviewers are expected to comply with the regulations of international publishing organizations such as WAME, EASE, ICMJE, and the ethical standards of COPE.
• The following sample has been prepared as a guide for essential considerations during the article evaluation process:
1. Brief Summary of Manuscript
Intent of the Study: Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript's purpose, highlighting the study's objectives and research focus.
Conclusions: Outline the key conclusions drawn by the authors based on their study findings.
Previous Publication: Express whether you believe this study has been previously published, in whole or in part, and if so, provide relevant details.
2. The Title
Title Reflecting Content: Assess whether the title effectively represents the content and scope of the manuscript.
3. The Keywords
Appropriateness of Keywords: Evaluate whether the chosen keywords are relevant and appropriate to the subject matter.
4. The Abstract
Structure: Determine if the abstract is well-structured and organized.
Adequate Summary: Assess if the abstract provides a comprehensive summary of the entire manuscript.
Comprehensibility: Evaluate whether the abstract can be understood without the need to read the entire manuscript.
Outcome Measures and Statistics: Check if the abstract specifies outcome measures and includes essential statistical information.
Consistency with the Manuscript: Identify any discrepancies between the abstract and the rest of the paper.
5. The Introduction
Brevity: Assess the brevity of the introduction.
Rationale: Determine if the rationale for the study is clearly explained and based on a review of relevant literature.
Study Purpose: Evaluate whether the purpose of the study is well-defined, including a clear hypothesis if applicable.
6. Materials and Methods
Appropriateness of Methods: Determine if the methods chosen are suitable for testing the stated hypothesis.
Reproducibility: Assess if the methods are described in a way that would allow another investigator to replicate the study.
Sample/Participant Recruitment: Check if the sample or participant recruitment is described in detail, including inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Ethical Considerations: Verify if the authors have obtained informed consent and ethical committee approval when relevant.
Data Acquisition and Evaluation: Evaluate whether the data acquisition and evaluation methods are clearly specified.
Statistical Methods: Assess the clarity and appropriateness of the statistical methods used.
7. Results
Clarity: Determine if the results are presented in a clear and understandable manner.
Order of Presentation: Check if the order of presentation of the results parallels the order of presentation of the methods.
Convincing Results: Assess whether the results are convincing and reasonable.
Appropriate Discussion: Identify if all results are adequately discussed in the methods section.
8. Discussion
Conciseness: Evaluate the conciseness of the discussion section.
Key Findings: Check if the discussion begins with the most important finding and summarizes key results.
Relation to Literature: Assess whether the discussion compares the results with the relevant literature.
Justification of Conclusions: Determine if the conclusions are justified by the study's results.
Explanation of Unexpected Results: Ensure that unexpected results are explained sufficiently.
Clinical Applicability: Check if the clinical applicability of the study findings is discussed.
Stating Limitations: Verify if the limitations of the study are clearly stated.
9. Figures and Graphs
Inclusion and Labeling: Ensure that all figures mentioned in the text are included and correctly labeled.
Correctness: Check if the figures and graphs are accurate.
Number of Figures: Ensure that the number of figures complies with journal guidelines.
Clarity of Presentation: Assess if figures and graphs effectively convey important results.
Legend Self-sufficiency: Verify if figure legends are self-sufficient and understandable without reference to the rest of the manuscript.
10. Tables
Relevance: Determine if the tables appropriately describe the results.
Abbreviations Explanation: Check if any abbreviations used in the tables are explained at the bottom.
11. References
Style Compliance: Ensure that the reference list follows the journal's style guidelines.
Number of References: Verify if the number of references adheres to journal guidelines.
Mistakes: Identify any obvious mistakes in the reference list.
Completeness: Assess if any important references need to be added.
12. Final Appraisal and Decision
Major Strengths and Weaknesses: Summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
Decision Criteria: Base your decision on the following questions:
1. Does the manuscript provide novel information not already available in the literature?
2. Is there a solid rationale for conducting the study?
3. Is the data analysis appropriate?
4. Are the results clear and accurate?
5. Is the article scientifically acceptable, even if the text needs improvement?
