EDITORIAL STANDARDS
Peer
Review
Every manuscript undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer review process in which author and reviewer identities remain confidential. Each submission is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.
Double-blind review — for every manuscript
Bayrakol Medical Publishing operates a rigorous double-blind peer-review process for all submitted manuscripts. Author and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
Editorial decisions are made independently by each journal's editorial team based solely on scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical standards, and the reviewers' recommendations. Confidentiality, impartiality, and editorial independence help ensure a fair review process and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
PEER REVIEW MODEL
Blind
Independent
Constructive
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer-review process designed to ensure fairness, confidentiality, scientific integrity, and editorial independence throughout the evaluation process.
- Double-blind peer review is applied to all manuscripts undergoing external peer review.
- Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
- Author and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the peer-review process.
- Editorial decisions are made independently by each journal's editorial team, based on scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical standards, and reviewers' recommendations.
- Reviewer reports are expected to be objective, constructive, respectful, and free from conflicts of interest.
REVIEWER SELECTION & INDEPENDENCE
Expertise
Independent reviewer selection
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, independently, and free from conflicts of interest.
- Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and relevant academic qualifications.
- Reviewers are assigned to ensure independent, objective, and unbiased evaluation, while avoiding conflicts of interest whenever possible.
- Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
- Editorial decisions remain independent of the publisher and are made solely by each journal's editorial team.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Validity
Ethics
Clarity
Reviewers evaluate each manuscript objectively and independently, focusing on scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical standards, originality, and clarity. Editorial assessment is based on the quality and integrity of the research, without regard to personal, institutional, or commercial interests.
- Scientific validity and methodological rigor.
- Appropriate study design, methodology, and statistical analysis.
- Compliance with ethical standards and research integrity.
- Originality, significance, and contribution to the scientific field.
- Clarity, coherence, and completeness of the manuscript.
REVIEW PROCESS & DECISIONS
Timely review
Editorial decisions
The peer-review process is managed to ensure timely, fair, and consistent editorial evaluation while maintaining confidentiality, scientific integrity, and editorial independence.
- Reviewers are invited to complete their evaluations within the journal's standard review period. If necessary, additional reviewers may be invited to avoid unnecessary delays.
- Revised manuscripts may undergo further peer review when considered necessary by the editors.
- Final editorial decisions are made independently by the journal's editorial team under the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, based on scientific merit, ethical standards, and reviewers' recommendations.
ETHICAL PEER-REVIEW FRAMEWORK
COPE | ICMJE | WAME
Bayrakol Medical Publishing is committed to ethical, transparent, and independent peer review. Our peer-review policies and editorial practices are aligned with the principles and recommendations of COPE, ICMJE, and WAME, supporting integrity, fairness, confidentiality, and editorial independence throughout the publication process.
- COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
- ICMJE Recommendations
- WAME Recommendations
RECORD RETENTION
Archived
Auditable
Transparent
Peer-review records are securely maintained to support confidentiality, accountability, transparency, and the integrity of the editorial process.
Peer-review records, including reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, revisions, and editorial decisions, are securely retained for a minimum of three (3) years following publication, or longer where required by applicable regulations or journal policy.
In cases of suspected publication misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, or other ethical concerns, investigations are conducted in accordance with COPE Flowcharts and relevant COPE guidance, while respecting confidentiality, due process, and editorial independence.