Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine is the scientific, peer-reviewed, open-access journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine. The entire submission process for an article is completed online through a descriptive online submission system via the following website: https://jag.journalagent.com/atfm/
Reviewers can also access their personal pages with their passwords through the same address.
After preliminary evaluation, the field editors send the manuscript to at least two external reviewers for evaluation. All articles are scientifically evaluated by double-blinding. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine requires reviewers to keep articles confidential. The material of the article should not be used or shared in any way until it is published. When editors suspect any ethical misconduct, they will act in accordance with the relevant international publication ethics guidelines, such as the COPE guidelines, ICMJE Recommendations, CSE's White Paper on Publication Ethics, WAME resources, WMA policies, and ORI. The reviewed articles are then re-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, and a decision to reject or accept is formed. If any reviewer has a conflict of interest, they must inform the editor before accepting to review the submission.
For all research studies, approval of research protocols by an ethics committee is required in accordance with international agreements such as the WMA Declaration of Helsinki- Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (latest update: October 2024, Helsinki, Finland), the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (8th edition, 2011), and/or the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012). If the submitted article does not include ethics committee approval, it will be reviewed according to COPE guidelines (Guidelines for Editors: Research, Audit, and Service Evaluations). If it is determined that the study requires ethical approval, authors will be asked to provide it to continue the review process.
If they cannot provide ethical approval, their article will be rejected, and it will be reported to the relevant institutions in their country if necessary, indicating that the study should have had ethics committee approval. If ethical approval is provided, the review of the article will continue. If the study does not require ethics committee approval, after the editorial board's review, authors will be asked to provide either a document obtained from an independent board stating that ethics committee approval is not required according to the research integrity rules of the country where the study was conducted or to provide the ethics committee approval. If the authors provide one of these documents, the review process will continue. If they cannot provide the documents, the article will be rejected.
For articles related to experimental research on humans, a statement should be included showing that informed consent was obtained after detailed information about the procedures the patients and volunteers would undergo was provided. Informed consent must also be obtained for case reports. Written permission must be obtained from the patient to publish recognizable photographs of them. Procedures performed to alleviate any pain, harm, or discomfort in subjects/animals should be clearly stated. Authors must clearly indicate that they have complied with internationally accepted guidelines and the guidelines issued by the relevant authorities in their country. The journal requires a copy of the Ethics Committee Approval obtained from the relevant authority.
Reviewers are expected to check whether the articles comply with the SAGER guidelines and to encourage authors in this regard. Authors should carefully use the terms sex, referring to biological characteristics, and gender, shaped by social and cultural conditions. Article titles and/or abstracts should clearly state which sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also identify whether sex and/or gender differences were anticipated, report how sex and/or gender were considered in the study design, provide sex- and/or gender-disaggregated data where appropriate, and discuss relevant outcomes.
Reviewers can refer to the 'Instructions to Authors' page if needed. They can also use the following criteria when evaluating articles:

RESEARCH EVALUATION CRITERIA

No Criterion Explanation Suitability

1 Has ethics committee approval been obtained for the study? Not required
2 Does the title of the article reflect the study? Yes
3 Does the English and Turkish abstract clearly and accurately reflect the content of the article? Yes
4 Are English and Turkish keywords selected appropriately? Yes
5 Is the text divided into appropriate sections according to the type of writing? Yes
6 Is the purpose of the study and/or the research question and hypotheses if any, clearly stated? Yes
7 Is the place, time, design (type of study) specified? Yes
8 Are the population, sample size, sampling method, inclusion and exclusion criteria specified? Partially
9 Is the study method sufficiently detailed (place, time, type of study, interview conducted, parameters assessed, etc.)? Yes
10 Are appropriate statistical methods preferred? (see https://www.toraks.org.tr/site/sf/books/pre_migration/ba74d7c39e0eee0e51a40505443342657f589732f18afc9273c4dfb9f0abd8ef.pdf )
Yes
11 Are the results written in line with the objectives of the study, including the results of statistical analysis? Yes
12 Are the figures and tables sufficient and arranged according to the journal rules? No
13 Has the discussion included the current literature? No
14 Does the citation of references in the text and the writing of references comply with the journal rules? Yes
15 Are the strengths and/or limitations of the study and potential sources of bias identified? Yes
16 Is the study topic original? Does it contribute to science? Partially
17 Is the written language of the study understandable, does it comply with the rules of spelling? Partially
Suitability should be marked with one of the following options: "yes", "partially", "no" and "not required".

Reviewer Invitation Process
Reviewers have 3 days to respond to the invitation to review. The period given to reviewers who accept the invitation to make their evaluation is 21 days. The 21-day period for the reviewer to evaluate the publication starts upon acceptance of the invitation. If the reviewer is unable to evaluate the work within the specified period, an additional period of 10 days is given. If the reviewer does not evaluate the article within this period, the reviewer is removed from the evaluation process and a new reviewer is invited by the associate editor. Reviewers are selected among experts in their fields.

Article Evaluation Process
Reviewers are expected to evaluate only studies in their own subject areas in line with the publication principles. It is expected that evaluation criteria should not only be answered with "yes", "no", etc.; negative opinions should be detailed and justifications should be explained. Reviewers who reject the manuscript are expected to write detailed explanations to guide the author. Reviewers can use the "track changes" feature on the manuscript file to elaborate on their views expressed in the evaluation form.
If deemed necessary, the revised article is sent back to the reviewers after the editorial check. The reviewer fills in the evaluation form again at this stage. After the reviewers evaluations are completed, the article is evaluated by the Editorial Board for a final decision.

When you are invited to review an article;
• Please make sure that the article topic is within your area of expertise.
• Please make sure you have enough time to evaluate the article.
• Please make sure that you have no conflict of interest regarding the study.


HOW TO WRITE A REVIEWER EVALUATION REPORT?
Below is a guide to help you review an article and make your recommendations.

Reviewing the Scope of the Journal
Visit the journal homepage of Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine and read the instructions for authors to get an idea of the scope and content of the journal. This will help you determine whether the article you are reviewing is suitable for the journal.

Reading the Article
Get an idea of the originality of the article's topic for the journal's readership, the accuracy and validity of the methodology, and whether the results are presented appropriately. Don't forget to review tables, figures or supplementary files while reading the article.

Writing the Report
Keep in mind that your report has two purposes: "to provide the editor with information to make decisions" and "to provide feedback to the authors to help them improve their work".
It is often useful to start with a brief summary of the main findings as you understand them and a summary of your overall view. Make constructive suggestions, ask for clarification and more details on unclear points. Direct your criticism to the work and avoid comments that may be taken personally by the author.
Here are the points you should pay attention to when writing your report:
• Give your impressions about whether the article is new and interesting, whether it contributes to science and whether it can have sufficient impact.
• Comment on whether the methods were appropriate and whether the study was conducted in accordance with the standards expected in your field.
• Make suggestions on how the author could improve the clarity, conciseness and quality of the presentation.
• Verify whether the topic of the article is interesting enough to justify its length. If you recommend abbreviation, mention the specific areas where you think it is necessary.
• Request the correction of places in the article where the expression is unclear in terms of spelling, grammar, etc.
• If you have plagiarism or other ethical concerns, please communicate your doubts to the editor, providing as much detail as possible.

Providing Detailed Feedback
Comments should be carefully worded so that the author understands what actions he or she needs to take to improve his or her article, rather than simply pointing out what is wrong. Try to write simply and avoid rhetorical flourishes that can lead to misunderstandings. Also, avoid generalized or vague statements, as well as negative comments that are not relevant or constructive.

Peer Review Comment Samples
Below are examples of how you can provide feedback on an author's work.

Examples of positive comments:
• The article is written in an engaging narrative.
• The topic is very important, it is currently a "hot topic" and this study makes an important contribution to the literature.
• I have no hesitation in recommending that it be accepted for publication after a few typos and other minor details have been taken care of.
• The literature review provides a useful overview of current research and the resulting product provides a useful resource for scientists.
• This is a well-written article that fills an important gap.
• Although this study is largely confirmatory, it can still be a contribution to the literature.
• I checked the methods and results and found that the study was well conducted and had no obvious errors.

Examples of constructive feedback:
• The introduction is too long, I suggest that authors shorten this section to retain only the important elements.
• I strongly advise the authors to rewrite the discussion to make it more contextualized.
• The authors used the X approach and therefore I expect to see disclosure of ethical approvals and storage of data in a publicly available database. It is important that the authors provide this information.
• A few important citations, such as the following, should be included in the paper.
• The data shown in table 1 and figure 3 refer to X, while the results section refers to Y. Authors should check carefully.
• This research reveals an interesting finding about ... However, I would have liked to see more discussion about what exactly this finding means and its implications.
• I would like to see more information about ...
• I do not think this article contains enough solid data to prove the statement on lines Y-Z on page X.
• This discussion can be extended to explain ...
• The author can strengthen the article as follows.
• The article could be significantly improved by adding more details about ...
• To make this article publishable, I recommend that authors perform the following additional analyses:

Examples of linguistic correction proposals:
• This article contains many grammatical errors (e.g. agreement of verbs) that make it difficult to follow.
• It may be useful to work with a professional English language editor after the article has been restructured.
• The article should change the way it is written to have a stronger, clearer and more convincing argument.
• There are a few sentences that need to be rephrased for clarity.

Decision on the Article
After reading the article and assessing its quality, you should make one of the following suggestions to the editor to help them make a decision.
• Accept: The article is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Minor revision: The article will be ready for publication after minor revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author to make.
• Major revision: The article requires significant changes, such as expanded data analysis, expansion of the literature review, or rewriting of sections of the text.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal or the revisions required are too extensive for the submission to continue to be considered in its current form. It would be helpful for the editor if you explain (in hidden comments if necessary) whether your suggestion is based on article content or technical flaws.

Revision Process
When authors revise their manuscripts, they are asked to include a list of changes and comments for reviewers. If only minor revisions have been requested, the revised version may be considered by the editor. Or the revised version may be sent to reviewers, who will be asked to confirm that the revisions are satisfactory.