Instructions to Reviewers

Peer Review Workflow

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment to ensure compliance with the scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards. Submissions deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are subject to a double-blind peer review process. At least two independent external reviewers—selected based on subject-matter expertise and relevant academic qualifications—are invited to provide detailed, objective, and evidence-based evaluations.

The purpose of peer review is to assess the scientific quality, originality, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity of the submission, as well as to evaluate its structure, clarity, and referencing.

Final decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with Associate Editors, based on a thorough assessment of reviewer reports and overall editorial judgment.

The editorial and publication processes of the journal are conducted in accordance with the guidelines of ICMJE, WAME, CSE, COPE, EASE, and NISO. The journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/).

Key Questions for Reviewers

• Does the title reflect the content of the manuscript?
• Are the keywords appropriate?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the manuscript and can it be understood independently? Are there discrepancies between the abstract and the text?
• Is the introduction based on relevant literature? Is the study purpose defined? Is there a hypothesis or research question?
• Are informed consent and ethical committee approval clearly stated in the methods section for studies involving humans or animals?
• Are the methods described in sufficient detail to allow independent reproducibility?
• Does the discussion highlight the main findings, compare results with relevant literature, address limitations, and provide a clear conclusion? Are references formatted correctly?

Accepting or Declining Invitations

Invitations to review manuscripts are sent via the online submission system. Reviewers can accept or decline the invitation through the provided link. Reviewers must confirm availability within five (5) days. If no response is received, the review may be reassigned. Reviewers should decline promptly if the topic is outside their expertise or if workload prevents timely evaluation.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review supports editors in making informed decisions and helps authors improve their work. Reviewers are expected to contribute fairly and responsibly.

Promptness

Reviewers should notify the editor if they feel unqualified or cannot review within the specified timeframe.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents and not shared or discussed without editor authorization.

Conflict Awareness

Reviewers should avoid reviewing manuscripts where personal or professional relationships may bias judgment.

Standards of Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Feedback should be clear, specific, and constructive.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify uncited relevant literature and note any substantial overlap with other works known to them.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline review if necessary. Unpublished material must not be used without authors' consent.

AI Disclosure Statement

Reviewers must disclose if AI-based tools are used for evaluation or report generation. Use of AI should not compromise confidentiality, objectivity, or the integrity of the review.

License

This text is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Readers may share, copy, adapt, and distribute this work for any purpose, provided proper attribution is given.