Reviewer and Editor Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Considering that Selcuk Medical Journal aims to publish original and significant articles, we kindly request reviewers to assist in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.
Below you will find information on the manuscript evaluation process, how to become a reviewer, and recommendations for writing a high-quality review. Additionally, reviewer terms and conditions based on COPE Principles—which provide further guidance on objective and constructive peer review—are included.
Selcuk Medical Journal uses the Double-Blind Peer Review System. The double-blind method is essential for the objective evaluation of scientific studies and is preferred by many scholarly journals to ensure the highest quality of scientific publishing. Reviewer comments are one of the primary determinants of publication quality in Selcuk Medical Journal. All manuscripts that pass the Initial Screening are evaluated using the double-blind peer-review process, which conceals both reviewer identities from the authors and author identities from the reviewers.
The period allotted to reviewers for evaluating a manuscript is 15 days. Reviewers may evaluate revisions and request multiple rounds of corrections when necessary. When reviewers request revisions, authors must submit the revised version within 15 days via the same system. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the reviewers who requested changes, when appropriate. Decisions regarding publication are made by the Editorial Board based on reviewer reports. If reviewer opinions conflict, the Editorial Board may send the manuscript to an additional reviewer. When two reviewers provide divergent recommendations, the editor or a third reviewer’s opinion is sought to reach a final decision.
Reviewers are selected from experts with experience and publications in the relevant scientific field. Information on specialists working in Turkish universities is obtained via the YÖK Academic portal, while international experts are identified through Publons.
Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers must be aware of potential personal biases and evaluate manuscripts accordingly. They should clearly articulate the rationale supporting their recommendations.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Reviewer reports assist editors in making publication decisions and provide authors with an opportunity to improve their work. Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or unable to complete the review in a timely manner should decline the invitation.
Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share any information or discuss the manuscript with others. Information in the manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the author’s explicit written permission. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and not be used for personal advantage.
Awareness of Ethical misconduct: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must not accept manuscripts for review if they have conflicts of interest arising from relationships with the authors or institutions associated with the study.
Requesting Unjustified Citations: If a reviewer suggests that authors cite the reviewer’s own work, this should be solely for scientific reasons, not for increasing personal citation counts or visibility.
Type of Review (Double-Blind): The editor ensures that manuscripts undergo fair double-blind peer review. If the manuscript meets basic formatting requirements, it is sent to national and/or international reviewers. A minimum of two reviewer reports is required. Reviewers may request changes, and authors must address these revisions before publication approval is granted.
Stage of Review: Pre-publication
Author–Reviewer Interaction: Managed entirely by the editors. Authors do not know reviewer identities, and reviewers do not know author identities.
Review Duration: The target time from submission to final decision for manuscripts undergoing peer review in Selcuk Medical Journal is no more than six weeks, although unavoidable delays may occur.
Plagiarism Control: All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism.
Number of Reviewers: Minimum of two.
Allowed Review Time: 15 days, extendable by an additional 3–10 days upon request.
Decision Rule: For acceptance, at least two reviewers or one reviewer plus an associate editor must recommend acceptance.
Suspicion of Misconduct: Reviewers must report suspected research or publication misconduct to the editor. The editor follows COPE guidelines for necessary actions.
Reviewer evaluations should be objective. Reviewers are expected to consider the following:
Does the manuscript contain new and important information?
Does the abstract accurately and clearly reflect the content?
Is the methodology coherent and clearly described?
Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
Are relevant references adequately cited?
Is the language quality sufficient?
Do the abstract and keywords accurately reflect the content?
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the online “Reviewer Evaluation Form.” If necessary, they may also annotate the full text and send their comments to the editor. Reviewers are expected to submit a scientific report of at least 50 words.
Possible reviewer recommendations:
Accept
Revision (Minor or Major)
Reject
Reviewer reports are examined by the editors within 10 days, after which the final decision is communicated to the authors.
The Editor-in-Chief is selected from medical science experts with at least Associate Professorship-level academic experience and publications relevant to the journal’s scope. At least one year of prior experience on the editorial board of an indexed scientific journal is required.
Associate Editors are selected from experts with publications or prior editorial board experience in the journal’s field.
Selcuk Medical Journal encourages its editors to benefit from professional communication with other editors and supports participation in the Türkiye Editors Workshop Group.
Coordination of Peer Review: The editor ensures that the peer-review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles must be reviewed by at least two external reviewers; additional opinions may be sought when necessary.
Selection of Reviewers: The editor selects suitable reviewers with relevant expertise while considering diversity and representation. Best practices are followed to avoid fraudulent reviewers.
Maintaining Confidentiality: The editor protects the confidentiality of all submitted materials and reviewer communications unless otherwise agreed. In exceptional cases, and in consultation with the publisher, limited information may be shared with other journal editors to investigate suspected misconduct.
Impartiality: Manuscripts must be evaluated based on intellectual merit without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Investigation of Allegations: If convincing evidence of ethical misconduct arises, the editor must contact the Editorial Board and Publisher to facilitate corrections, retractions, or other necessary actions.
Conflict of Interest: The editor must not be involved in decisions regarding manuscripts written by themselves or their family members. These manuscripts must undergo the standard journal procedures. The editor must apply ICMJE guidelines regarding disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
Publication Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the editor is responsible for deciding which submissions will be published, in accordance with policies set by the Editorial/Advisory Board.
Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern:
Editors may publish corrections for minor errors that do not affect the findings. For major errors that invalidate the results, editors should consider retraction. If concerns about research misconduct arise and institutional investigations are absent or insufficient, editors may publish an expression of concern. COPE and ICMJE guidelines are followed for corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.
