All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process conducted by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the validity, scientific significance, and originality of the submitted work, as well as its adherence to established ethical and methodological standards.
The editorial and publication processes comply with the recommendations and best practices of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org).
The journal operates a single-blind peer review process, in which reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while authors do not know the reviewers' identities.
Reviewers are normally expected to provide their reports within three weeks. If a reviewer is unable to complete the evaluation within a reasonable timeframe, the Editor-in-Chief may request an assessment from a Deputy Editor or Associate Editor to ensure timely processing of the manuscript.
Authors may suggest up to two potential reviewers, provided that they:
are independent experts in the field,
are affiliated with institutions in different countries or regions from the authors,
have not collaborated or co-authored publications with the authors within the past three years.
Reviewer suggestions are welcome and may facilitate the review process; however, the journal does not guarantee their selection.
REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AND CONFIDENTIALITY
Reviewers must adhere to the following principles:
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation and must decline the review if such conflicts exist.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and the intellectual property of the authors. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript prior to publication.
Objectivity and Constructive Feedback: Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Comments should be clear, evidence-based, and constructive. Personal or derogatory remarks are not acceptable.
Scientific Evaluation: Reviewers should assess the methodological rigor, statistical analysis, and interpretation of results. When necessary, manuscripts may undergo specialized statistical review.
Originality and Citation: Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and report any suspected overlap, duplication, or plagiarism.
Anonymity: Reviewers must avoid revealing their identity in comments to authors.
Manuscript Handling: Reviewers must not retain copies of manuscripts and should delete or destroy all materials after completing the review.
Additional confidential comments regarding scientific quality, methodological concerns, or ethical issues may be submitted directly to the Editor-in-Chief.
EDITORIAL DECISIONS
Editorial decisions are based on reviewers’ reports and editorial judgment. A manuscript is typically accepted only when at least two reviewers provide favorable evaluations.
Possible editorial decisions include:
Accepted
Request for minor revision, where authors revise their article to address specific concern
Request for major revision, where authors revise their article to address significant concerns and perhaps undertake additional work.
Rejected, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, the Editor-in-Chief may seek an additional independent review before making a final decision.
Authors receive the reviewers’ comments along with the editorial decision.
REVISION PROCESS
If revisions are requested via email, authors will receive detailed feedback and a resubmission deadline. Revised manuscripts must be submitted through the designated revision process and must include a point-by-point response addressing all reviewer comments. A revised article should be submitted via the revision link provided in the decision letter, and not as a new article.
Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLICATION
Once all editorial issues have been satisfactorily addressed, the manuscript is formally accepted. Authors will be notified of the acceptance decision.
Prior to publication, the corresponding author will be asked to review the final version of the manuscript. Only minor corrections are permitted at this stage and must be approved by the editorial office.
Changes in authorship (including addition, removal, or reordering of authors, or changes to the corresponding author) are not permitted after acceptance.
Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors.
SUPPLEMENTS AND SPECIAL ISSUES
Special issues or supplements must be approved in advance by the Editor-in-Chief.
Guest Editors are responsible for proposing content and managing submissions; however, all manuscripts included in supplements must undergo the same rigorous peer review and ethical standards as regular submissions.
Guest Editors must be recognized experts in the field and must adhere to the journal’s editorial policies. Failure to comply with ethical standards or editorial guidelines may result in cancellation of the supplement.
All sources of funding for supplement content must be clearly disclosed and approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Financial support must not influence editorial decisions. Personal remuneration from sponsors to Guest Editors is not permitted.
PEER REVIEW GUIDANCE
When invited to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:
Expertise: Accept the review only if the manuscript falls within their area of expertise. If necessary, reviewers may suggest additional experts for specific aspects (e.g., statistics, epidemiology).
Timeliness: If unable to complete the review, reviewers should promptly notify the editorial office and may suggest alternative reviewers.
Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers should assess:
Novelty and Relevance Please assess whether the research question is clearly defined and scientifically relevant. Does the manuscript provide a meaningful contribution to the existing literature? If the findings are not entirely novel, are appropriate and up-to-date references provided? For review articles, does the manuscript offer new insights, perspectives, or a critical synthesis of the topic? Please also comment on the potential interest of this work for both specialists and the broader scientific or medical community.
Quality of Presentation Evaluate whether the Title and Abstract accurately reflect the content of the manuscript. Does the Introduction clearly outline the objectives and provide sufficient background, including a concise and relevant review of the literature?
Scientific Rigor and Methodology Is the study design appropriate to address the research question? Are the methods clearly described and reproducible? Please identify the main strengths of the manuscript. Additionally, suggest any improvements that could enhance the structure, clarity, or logical flow of the manuscript.
Statistical Analysis and Validity of Conclusions Are the statistical methods appropriate and properly applied? Are statistical results (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals) correctly reported? Are the conclusions supported by the data presented and/or the literature cited? Does the manuscript confirm or challenge existing knowledge? Have the authors adequately discussed the limitations of their study? Are these limitations appropriate and sufficiently detailed? Are tables and figures clear, correctly labeled, and necessary? Could additional materials improve clarity?
Interest and Impact Are the findings relevant and of interest to the journal’s readership? Is the manuscript likely to appeal to a broad audience or primarily to a specialized field?
Overall Merit Please provide an overall assessment of the manuscript. Does it offer sufficient scientific value to justify publication? Does it advance current knowledge in the field?
Language and Style Is the manuscript written in clear, accurate, and professional English? Please indicate if language editing is required.
Reviewers should provide clear, detailed, and constructive comments, supported by scientific evidence where appropriate to assist the Editor-in-Chief in making an informed final decision.
Critical Evaluation If you believe the manuscript should be rejected or requires major revision, please provide clear and well-justified criticisms. You are not required to correct grammar, spelling, or style, as this will be addressed upon acceptance; however, any suggestions that improve clarity are appreciated.
Constructive Feedback All comments should be constructive and aimed at helping the authors improve their work. When suggesting substantial revisions, please clearly explain your reasoning and, where appropriate, provide supporting references.
Clarity and Evidence-Based Assessment Please distinguish between comments based on your professional opinion and those supported by scientific evidence. Your role as a reviewer is to evaluate the quality and rigor of the work. If you recommend additional analyses or content, please indicate which are essential to support the manuscript’s claims and which are optional suggestions for future research.
Confidential Comments to the Editor Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief in addition to those intended for the authors. Any suspicion of plagiarism or ethical concerns should be reported directly to the Editor-in-Chief. The journal employs plagiarism detection tools (e.g., eTBLAST, CrossCheck, and Wcopyfind) and follows COPE guidelines for handling suspected misconduct. (http://publicationethics.org/resources/ flowcharts).
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND CONFIDENTIALITY
1. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation. If such conflicts exist, reviewers should decline the review assignment.
2. Confidentiality of Manuscripts Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and the intellectual property of the authors. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript prior to publication.
3. Restrictions on Sharing Reviewers must not copy, distribute, or share the manuscript with others without explicit permission from the journal.
4. Handling of Manuscripts All copies of the manuscript should be deleted or destroyed after the review has been completed.
