Reviewer Guideline

Peer review guidelines

This journal follows a double-blind peer review model. In line with the aims and mission of the journal, papers are normally peer reviewed by two independent academic experts, and additional or supplementary reviews by experts from the policy community may be sought to ensure high-quality, impactful publications that are both academically rigorous and policy relevant.

The articles sent to the journal are sent to the referees after they pass the editorial pre-control evaluations such as compliance with journal writing rules, spelling-writing errors, statistics, and language evaluation, plagiarism screening. Articles pass the "Double-Blind Referee Review". Each article is sent to 2 referees, if both referees agree, the article is accepted for publication. If both referees give refusal to the article, the article is rejected. If one of the referees accepts an objection, the article is sent to a referee and accepted or rejected according to his decision. It is aimed that all these processes should not exceed 3 months (to be completed within 1 month as much as possible). Therefore, the quick return of the relevant author after the revision is important.

The information requested to be filled in the Article Evaluation Form is transmitted to the author in accordance with our double-blind review policy (Referee information is not shared with the author, but the referee corresponds with the editor). The document is translated into the anonymous user by preventing you from appearing as a document owner while conveying your suggestions / questions with the "Word Description / Adding Comments" feature in the article word file due to the MediHealth Academy software, the Article Evaluation Form cannot be accessed from Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge search engines. For this reason, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox et al. You will be able to view this form using the search engines. You can only send the points you want the Editor to see to the editor in the system from the message area. In the “Recommendation” section: You are expected to choose one of the options such as Acceptance, Rejection, Major Revision, and Minor Revision. After your Major or Minor Revision advice, the article will be sent to the author. The corrected version of the author will be offered to you to reconsider.

Reviewers are expected to observe the Ethics Policy of Transnational Corporations, including the documents referenced in it, and are encouraged to read and observe the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Those who oversee the peer review process are expected to recognize warning signs of misconduct and to report any concerns to the editorial office.

Ethical Policies for Referees in The Injector

Conflict of Interest Statement: If you notice a conflict of interest after the review of the referee has started, inform the editor immediately so that another referee can be appointed to evaluate the article.

Double-Blind Status: The referee ID is not shared with the author. To help protect your identity, do not include your name in your evaluation article. Also, do not contact the author. The authors should also be confidential from the referees during the evaluation process. If the text sent to the referee is not blind, the referee should inform the editorial board and not evaluate this article. After informing the editorial board of the referee, appropriate blind will be provided and a different referee will be assigned to the article.

Privacy Policy: The referee must protect confidentiality regarding the existence and subject of the article. It is not appropriate to share the article with others or discuss its details with others before printing. If a referee asks a colleague for assistance with the evaluation, the person who assisted the referee should also maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be informed that an additional person has taken part in the evaluation.

Referee Attitude: As stated in the 'ICMJE Uniform Requirements' document,' Referees should not use the information in the study for their own benefit prior to the publication of the article.

Reporting Ethical Concerns: Referees also have the responsibility to report any ethical concerns, including, but not limited to, ethics concerns about copying, cheating, suspected plagiarism, or the use of humans or animals in research.

Fraud: It can be very difficult to detect a deceptive fraud, but if you think the findings in an article are wrong, talk to the editor.

Writing the Evaluation Result: Dear journal referee, please submit your comments, suggestions, and opinions on the text of the article