Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Kafkasya Journal of Health Sciences implements a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and reliability of the research it publishes. All manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

  1. Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.

  2. The editorial office performs an initial check for completeness, adherence to journal scope, formatting, and compliance with research and publication ethics.

  3. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements may be returned without review.

2. Editorial Assessment

  1. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editors evaluates the manuscript’s novelty, scientific significance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

  2. Manuscripts passing this stage are assigned to expert reviewers.

  3. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s standards at this stage may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

  1. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, qualifications, and publication record in the relevant field.

  2. Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review.

  3. The journal ensures that each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

4. Peer Review Types

Kafkasya Journal of Health Sciences primarily uses double-blind peer review:

  • Double-blind: The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.

  • The process ensures objectivity, impartiality, and unbiased assessment.

5. Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

  1. Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

    • Originality and significance of the study

    • Methodology and experimental design

    • Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation

    • Clarity, organization, and readability of the manuscript

    • Compliance with ethical standards (human/animal research, conflicts of interest, plagiarism)

  2. Reviewers submit detailed reports with recommendations:

    • Accept as is

    • Minor revisions

    • Major revisions

    • Reject

  3. Reviewers provide constructive, objective, and professional feedback to help improve manuscript quality.

6. Editorial Decision

  1. Editors consider reviewer comments and make the final publication decision.

  2. Decisions are communicated to authors along with reviewer reports.

  3. Possible editorial decisions include:

    • Accept

    • Accept with minor revisions

    • Revise and resubmit (major revisions)

    • Reject

7. Revision Process

  1. Authors respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript.

  2. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to original reviewers for re-evaluation.

  3. Editors review the revised manuscript and make a final decision.

8. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

  • All reviewers and editors adhere to COPE guidelines and the journal’s ethical policies.

  • Peer review is conducted confidentially, and all information obtained during review is strictly confidential.

  • Any suspected ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, data manipulation, authorship disputes) are addressed according to COPE procedures.

9. Timelines and Transparency

  • The journal aims to provide initial decisions within 4–6 weeks of submission.

  • The peer review process is tracked via the online submission system, ensuring transparency and accountability.

10. Post-Peer Review

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, formatting, and proofreading before publication.

  • Authors have the opportunity to approve final proofs.

  • All peer review documentation is retained for audit and ethical compliance purposes.