Peer Review Policy for Pamukkale Medical Journal
The Pamukkale Medical Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific publishing through a rigorous and impartial peer review process. This policy outlines our procedures and ethical guidelines for all submitted manuscripts.
1. Peer Review Model
Pamukkale Medical Journal employs a double-blind peer review model. Submissions undergo a double-blind review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This means that:
• The identities of the authors are not revealed to the reviewers.
• The identities of the reviewers are not revealed to the authors.
This model helps ensure objectivity and minimizes potential bias, fostering a fair evaluation of the manuscript's scientific merit.
2. The Peer Review Process
Submission: Authors submit through the DergiPark system, including essential files (full text, ethical approval, copyright forms, etc.)
Initial Editorial Assessment: Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine if the manuscript fits the journal's scope, meets basic quality standards, and adheres to ethical guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review.
Assignment to Reviewers: If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it will be assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, research interests, and lack of conflicts of interest.
Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly, considering aspects such as:
 Originality and significance: Does the research contribute new knowledge?
 Methodology: Are the study design, methods, and statistical analyses appropriate and sound?
 Results: Are the findings clearly presented and supported by the data?
 Discussion: Are the interpretations reasonable and the conclusions justified?
 Language and clarity: Is the manuscript well-written, clear, and concise?
 Ethical considerations: Were appropriate ethical approvals obtained and reported?
 Recommendations: Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide a recommendation to the editor, typically choosing from options such as:
• Accept (rarely, without revisions)
• Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions
• Reject
Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations, their own assessment, and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript. The decision, along with reviewer comments, is communicated to the authors.
Timeline: The review process typically takes 4–6 weeks per round, with revisions requested within 2–4 weeks of decision notification. Delays may occur due to reviewer availability. Please see Journal Work Flow Chart: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/patd/page/13774
3. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. They are expected to:
• Maintain confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a confidential document and not disclose any information about it.
• Be objective and constructive: Provide unbiased feedback, focusing on the scientific content and offering constructive criticism to help improve the manuscript.
• Declare conflicts of interest: Inform the editor of any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an impartial review.
• Complete reviews in a timely manner: Adhere to agreed-upon deadlines to ensure an efficient publication process.
• Identify plagiarism or ethical concerns: Alert the editor if they suspect any unethical conduct, plagiarism, or data manipulation.
4. Author Responsibilities
Authors are expected to:
• Adhere to ethical guidelines: Ensure their research is conducted ethically and reported accurately.
• Respond to reviewer comments respectfully: Address all feedback thoroughly and provide a point-by-point response.
• Revise manuscripts diligently: Make all necessary revisions to improve the quality of their work based on reviewer and editor feedback.
• Declare conflicts of interest: Disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest.
5. Editor Responsibilities
Editors are responsible for:
• Ensuring a fair and unbiased review process: Overseeing the entire peer review process to ensure fairness, timeliness, and adherence to journal policies.
• Making informed decisions: Basing editorial decisions on the scientific merit of the work, reviewer recommendations, and journal scope.
• Protecting reviewer anonymity: Maintaining the confidentiality of reviewer identities.
• Handling appeals: Addressing author appeals regarding editorial decisions fairly and transparently.
6. Ethical Considerations
The Pamukkale Medical Journal adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspected cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other research misconduct will be investigated thoroughly according to COPE guidelines.
Revisions and Resubmission: If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewer comments thoroughly. A revised manuscript may undergo further review by the original reviewers or new reviewers, as deemed necessary by the editor.