Standard Procedures Applied to Manuscripts Submitted for Publication

The evaluation and publication processes for articles are conducted transparently, allowing all editors to follow them. The Editorial Board meets at least once per publication period to shape the new issue. Controversial issues are discussed and resolved by mutual agreement during these meetings. Articles and revisions are submitted and tracked through the online article submission system on the http://www.ejmanager.com website.

The review process for each article is as follows:

• a. Each submitted article is reviewed by the editor-in-chief in terms of content according to the scope of the journal. The CRISP checklist (Primary Care and Family Medicine Research / CRISP Checklist: https://crisp-pc.org) is applied to confirm its suitability for primary care.
• b. The editor-in-chief may reject manuscripts that do not fit the journal’s scope and aims. The editor-in-chief assigns a topic editor to submissions accepted for review, based on their area of expertise.
• c. Following the initial review, the assigned editor assesses the paper for plagiarism, general writing style, ethics committee approval for original investigations, informed consent in clinical case studies, and a conflict of interest form. This evaluation process is limited to two weeks.
  • i. The manuscript is evaluated for plagiarism using the ithenticate programme in the e-manager system. Manuscripts with a similarity report score above 25 are sent to the authors with the report, and they are asked to make the necessary corrections and resubmit the manuscript to the system, or they are rejected outright. This decision is shared with the Editorial Board. If the manuscript is resubmitted to the system, the plagiarism evaluation is performed again.
  • ii. Evaluation of compliance with the general article format (See Information for Authors) Articles that do not comply with the journal criteria are returned to the authors for revision. The revision period is limited to two weeks.
  • iii. Ethics committee approval is required for original studies, and informed consent is required for clinical case studies. The relevant documents must be uploaded to the system.
  • iv. Conflict of interest form is one of the documents that must be uploaded to the system.
• d. After preliminary evaluation by the editors, research articles, short papers, case reports, and reviews accepted for review are evaluated by two independent reviewers selected from the list of reviewers according to their areas of expertise.
• e. Double-blind peer review process: The editors ensure that the manuscript is sent to the reviewers with all references to the location and authors of the study blinded in the first version of the manuscript.
• f. Letters to the editor, editorial articles, translations of important international documents and abstracts are reviewed by two editors, revised as necessary, and published if deemed appropriate.
• g. The review period is two weeks, with a one-week extension possible. If the reviewer has not responded after two weeks, the reviewer is replaced.
• h. Reviewer feedback is sent to the authors after being evaluated by the editor, who is responsible for ensuring that the feedback is constructive and objective.
• i. If the article requires advanced statistical evaluation, it is sent to the Journal’s statistical editor.
• j. The author(s) must complete the revision within 2-4 weeks based on the reviewers’ suggestions and send the revised form to the reviewer with the necessary explanations.
• k. The editor sends the revised article back to the reviewers.
• l. Reviewers must complete the review process within two weeks.
• m. If one of the reviewers rejects the paper, it may be assigned to a third reviewer. Articles are published with the permission of two reviewers, the editor’s final decision, and the editorial board.
• n. Once the article has been accepted for publication, an acceptance letter is sent to the authors.
• o. The article is sent to the technical editor for technical corrections.
• p. If the article is in English, it is sent to the English editor.
• q. The final version of the article, following the technical editor’s corrections, is sent to the author(s) for review (author proof).
• r. The article, with the author’s approval, is sent to the publishing institution for publication.
• s. The average time from article submission to publication in the journal ranges from 6 to 12 weeks.

• The Journal of Turkish Family Physician adopts a double-blind peer review policy and endorses COPE guidelines for reviewers. The double-blind peer review means that the evaluation of the manuscript is completely anonymous to provide objective evaluation. Authors do not know the reviewer, and the reviewers do not know the authors, only the editor knows each stage.
• In this system minimum of two independent reviewers are required to assess the manuscript. In case of disagreement or rejection between the assigned reviewers, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer, ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection belonging to the Editor.
• The author(s) can suggest potential reviewers. Editors will consider their proposition or not. Providing any false information about potential reviewers may lead to rejection of the article.
  Confidentiality and integrity of the peer review support editorial decision-making process. The reviewer should declare any competing interest before submitting their report to the journal.
• The reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s sections and its conformity to scientific principles. Reviewers provide detailed comments about the research and manuscript and by their feedback help the authors improve their manuscripts.
• Reviewers feedback is sent to authors after being evaluated by the editor; editors are responsible for ensuring that feedback is constructive and objective.

COPE Council. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. September 2017. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf. Retrieved December 19, 2017.

Reviewers’ responsibilities:

• Evaluate the manuscripts with an objective and independent approach.
• Accept to evaluate studies related to their specialty and be timely to return the review in the designated deadline.
• Recommend to the editor whether the paper is suitable for the journal.
• Declare real or perceived personal or professional conflicts of interests, anything that would prevent the reviewer from providing an objective analysis of the work.
• Treat the manuscript as confidential for any information about the reviewed manuscript, they do not contact others about the work.
• Avoid communicating directly with the authors.
• Be objective and fair during the review and publication process, and avoid any discrimination based on gender, religion, politics, ethnic or geographical origin or other influence.
• Refrain from using the work they review in any way in their own work.
• Avoid making derogatory comments to the authors.• Use an objective and constructive language in their comments, respectful to the author’s rights.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewers

• The reviewer must evaluate the manuscripts with an objective and independent approach.
• The reviewer must accept to evaluate studies related to their specialty and be timely to return the review in the designated deadline.
• The reviewer must be objective and fair during the review and publication process, and avoid any discrimination based on gender, religion, politics, ethnic or geographical origin or other influence.
• The reviewer must refuse to any work in case of a potential conflict of interest and must inform the journal editor.
• The reviewer must be confidential for any information about the reviewed manuscript.
• The reviewer must use an objective and constructive language in their comments, respectful to the author’s rights.
• Acknowledgements (if any), potential conflict of interest or no conflict of interest, the ethics committee approval (institution, date and protocol number), in case presentations, the information about the consent form was signed and participation rate of the authors/researchers must be added at the end of the text.

Several steps recommended for the review process:

1. Examine the request to be sure whether this is your area of expertise.
2. Make sure that you don’t have any conflicts related to the writers, topic, or funding sources.
3. Confirm that you have time to complete the review in the allotted, 14-day period.
4. Read the manuscript, take notes of specific issues you want to address on a word document; submitting your comments you may save and submit this document or you can copy and paste as parts, such as methods, results, discussion into the submission system if available.
5. Search the literature for similar articles.
6. Read the manuscript again.
7. Take notes or an informal outline of what you want to tell the editor or to the authors.
8. Write your review based on your notes, and structure it according to the parts of the manuscript.
9. Reread your review for clarity, objectivity, correctness and constructiveness.
10. Be sure to use appropriate language to the authors and editor.
11. Complete the reviewer form and load to the submission system.

Reviewers can use use the appropriate Equator Network reporting guidelines https://www.equator-network.org

• Randomized trials: CONSORT Checklists
• Observational studies: STROBE Checklists
• Qualitative studies: COREQ Checklist
• Mixed methods research: MMAT VERSION 2018
• Quality improvement studies: SQUIRE 2.0 Checklist
• Implementation studies: StaRI checklist

Comments to the Authors:

Provide constructive feedback to the authors about their research and manuscript. Begin with a general comment that indicates that you understood the article you are reviewing and some positive but objective comments on the manuscript. Before reading the critics the author(s) would be encouraged with some positive comments on their work.

Confine your evaluation to a functional change that will improve the manuscript whether accepted or not. Many rejected manuscripts are published in other journals.

1. Number your comments under related headings such as introduction, aim, methods, etc.
2. Cite the line numbers from the manuscript in your comments if appropriate.
3. There is no need for grammatical or language correction.
4. Focus on the purpose of the study, study design and analysis, scientific validity, and conclusions.

Comments to the Editors:

This optional section provides reviewers the opportunity to give a brief confidential bottom-line assessment of the manuscript, such as any ethical concern or suspected plagiarism or fraud. No need to copy the “Comments to Authors” into the “Comments to Editors” section, as the editors will see both.

The review must:

• Be comprehensive, objective, and insightful.
• Evaluate the purpose of the study, study design, scientific validity, and conclusions.
• Suggestions constructive and numbered
• Be returned timely
• After submission, for your own development pursue the reviewing process and read and consider the other reviews when a final decision is made by the editors.

Reading the other reviews can give you insight into the manuscript itself. Read the published version to get a sense of how your contribution has benefited the scientific literature as a whole.

References: World Association of Medical Editors. Syllabus for prospective and newly appointed editors. Reviewers—their responsibilities, selection, and rewards. Available at: http://www.wame.org/about/syllabus-for-prospective-and-newly-appointed#Reviewers.

COPE Council. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. September 2017. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf. Retrieved December 19, 2017.
Obstetrics & Gynecology https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/pages/default.aspx