• Each submitted manuscript is overviewed by the editor-in-chief for their content regarding the scope of the journal. The manuscripts beyond the aims and scope of the Journal can be rejected by the editor-in-chief. For the manuscripts accepted for the evaluation, the editor-in-chief assign an editor by simple ranking or the interest area is taken into consideration.Following the initial review, including plagiarism, general manuscript format, ethic committee approval for original studies and informed consent for clinical case discussions, conflict of interest form by the assigned editor. The evaluation period is limited to two weeks.
• Manuscripts that do not match with the journal’s criteria will be send back for revision. The revision period is limited to two weeks.
• Manuscripts and revisions should be submitted through the online manuscript submission system at the website https://www.ejmanager.com
• After initial evaluation by the editors, research articles, short reports, case reports, articles and reviews which have been accepted for consideration are peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, selected from reviewer list according to their expertise area.
• Letters to the editor, editorials, translations of important international documents and abstracts, may be published without being evaluated by the reviewers, unless being reviewed by another editor.
• Double blinded peer-review process
• Manuscripts are sent anonymously to the reviewers which are blind to the author(s) who are blind to the reviewers.
• The reviewing period is two weeks and an extension of one week can be provided.
• If the reviewer does not respond at the end of the two weeks the reviewer is changed.
• Revisions are sent to the author after evaluation by the editor.
• The author(s) must complete the revision based on the reviewers’ recommendations in 2-4 weeks and send the revised form including explanations to the reviewer.
• The editor will return the revised manuscript to the reviewers.
• The reviewers must complete the reviewing process in two weeks.
• If one of the reviewers rejects the manuscript, it can be sent to a third reviewer. Manuscripts are published based on the two reviewers’ acceptance.
• All the evaluation and publication process of the submitted manuscripts are shared in monthly meetings with the participation of the editors and the editor-in-chief. Manuscripts with controversial issues are discussed in these meetings and shared decisions are taken.
• The Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision based on editorial priorities, manuscript quality, and reviewer recommendations.
• After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the manuscript will be sent for author(s) proof reading. After this process the author(s) cannot make any changes in the article which is sent to the publishing process.
• Once published, the manuscript content is the property of the journal and excerpts cannot be published elsewhere without citing the journal as the source as indicated in the published article.

The Journal of Turkish Family Physician adopt a double-blind peer review policy and endorse 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’ 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.

List modified from: 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.

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.

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