Editorial Policies
Our journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of editorial independence, scientific integrity, and transparency throughout every stage of the publication process. The policies below outline how editorial decisions are made, the responsibilities of our editors, and the structure of our peer review process.
1. Editorial Independence and Policy
Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board operate independently of the publisher, sponsors, and any affiliated organizations. Editorial decisions are not influenced by commercial interests, advertising revenue, or external pressures, ensuring impartiality and integrity throughout the publication process.
The editorial team is responsible for:
- Ensuring a fair, unbiased, and timely peer review process
- Maintaining the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
- Managing conflicts of interest among editors and reviewers
- Upholding ethical standards in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
2. Roles and Responsibilities of Editors
Editors, in addition to general responsibilities—such as continuously improving the quality, integrity, and academic value of our journal; responding to the needs of authors and readers; and encouraging scholarly debate—are committed to applying best editorial practices in fulfilling the following duties.
Editorial Board
The editorial board is composed of recognized experts in medicine and related disciplines. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that the full names and institutional affiliations of all members, along with up-to-date contact information for the editorial office, are publicly available on the journal's website.
Publication Decisions
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts will be published. Decisions are based on the scientific validity, originality, clarity, and importance of the work, as well as its relevance to our journal's scope and aims.
Editorial decisions follow journal policies and are subject to legal and ethical requirements, including copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult Associate Editors and peer reviewers in the decision-making process.
Fair Play
Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on intellectual and scientific merit, without regard to authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript are based exclusively on scientific quality, originality, clarity, and relevance.
Confidentiality
Editors and the editorial team must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, peer reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, or the publisher, as appropriate. All submitted materials are treated as confidential and are protected throughout the peer review process.
3. Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to our journal undergo a rigorous and structured peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality, originality, and ethical integrity. The process is designed to provide authors with fair, constructive, and transparent feedback.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
Every submitted manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief for:
- Compliance with our journal's scope and aims
- Adherence to submission guidelines (formatting, word limits, references, figures, and tables)
- Ethical compliance (e.g., ethics committee approval, informed consent, plagiarism check)
Manuscripts not meeting these requirements are rejected without external review. Authors receive an explanation and may revise and resubmit if appropriate.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
- Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are sent to at least two independent external reviewers with subject-matter expertise.
- Authors' and reviewers' identities are kept confidential to avoid bias.
- Reviewers are selected based on expertise, academic and clinical experience, and previous reviewing reliability.
3. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts on:
- Scientific validity — study design, methods, data analysis, and results
- Originality and novelty — contribution of new knowledge
- Clinical or academic relevance — importance to the field
- Ethical standards — human/animal research ethics and consent procedures
- Clarity and structure — title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, tables, figures, references
- Reference accuracy — correct and up-to-date citation of sources
4. Reviewer Feedback
Reviewers provide detailed comments and categorize their recommendation as:
| 1 | Accept without revisions |
| 2 | Minor revisions required |
| 3 | Major revisions required |
| 4 | Reject |
Reviewers justify recommendations, highlight strengths/weaknesses, and suggest improvements. Unacknowledged prior work or overlap with published manuscripts should also be identified.
5. Revision Process
Authors receive reviewer comments and are expected to:
- Address all points
- Provide a point-by-point response letter
- Submit revised manuscript within the given timeframe
Major revisions may be re-evaluated by original reviewers.
6. Final Decision
Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with Associate Editors, makes the final decision:
| 1 | Acceptance |
| 2 | Conditional Acceptance |
| 3 | Further Revision Required |
| 4 | Rejection |
Decisions are based on reviewer recommendations, revision quality, and journal standards. Authors are notified with rationale to ensure transparency.
7. Transparency and Ethical Standards
Our journal follows ICMJE, WAME, CSE, COPE, EASE, NISO, and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing guidelines.
Conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed. Peer review is conducted fairly, objectively, and confidentially.
8. Reviewer Responsibilities
- Maintain manuscript confidentiality
- Conduct objective and constructive evaluations
- Identify unreferenced relevant literature
- Declare conflicts of interest
- Disclose any AI-based tool usage in reviews, ensuring confidentiality and objectivity
Detailed ethical standards, authorship criteria, and misconduct procedures are described in our journal's "Publication Ethics" section.