PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Turkish Journal of Hematology employs a structured and independent peer review process to ensure that submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their scientific quality, relevance, methodological soundness, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements.

Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

Each manuscript submitted to the journal first undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Office.

At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated to determine whether it:

• is pertinent to the aims and scope of the journal;
• complies with the journal’s submission and article type requirements; and
• meets the essential technical and editorial requirements for further consideration.

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or may be rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial screening are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for further editorial assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript to determine its suitability for consideration by the journal, taking into account its subject matter, scientific relevance, scope, and overall appropriateness for peer review.

Assignment to an Associate Editor

Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to an Associate Editor with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.

The Associate Editor is responsible for coordinating the scientific evaluation of the manuscript, selecting appropriate reviewers, assessing the reviewer reports, and making an editorial recommendation.

Double-Blind Peer Review and Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. The identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Original research articles are evaluated by at least three independent external expert reviewers with appropriate expertise and experience in the relevant subject area. Other manuscript types are evaluated by at least two independent external expert reviewers.

Reviewers are selected primarily on the basis of their scientific expertise and their ability to provide an objective and qualified assessment of the manuscript. The reviewer selection process also takes into consideration impartiality, independence, potential conflicts of interest, and institutional diversity.

Reviewers are selected from institutions other than those of the authors. Where possible, institutional diversity among reviewers is also taken into consideration to support the independence and impartiality of the evaluation process.

Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment and to decline the review invitation when they are unable to provide an independent and impartial evaluation.

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts with regard to their:

• scientific quality and originality;
• relevance to the field;
• methodological appropriateness;
• validity and interpretation of the findings;
• clarity and completeness of presentation; and
• compliance with applicable scientific and ethical standards.

Reviewers submit their comments, recommendations, and confidential assessments, where applicable, to the Associate Editor.

The Associate Editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports together with the scientific and editorial merits of the manuscript and determines whether additional assessment is required.

If the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, or if further specialist evaluation is considered necessary, the Associate Editor may invite an additional independent reviewer before making an editorial recommendation.

Editorial Evaluation and Decision

Following completion of the peer review process, the Associate Editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ responses where applicable, and the overall scientific merit of the manuscript.

Based on this assessment, the Associate Editor submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

A manuscript may be:

• accepted;
• rejected;
• returned to the authors for minor revision; or
• returned to the authors for major revision.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript after considering the reviewers’ reports, the recommendation of the Associate Editor, the scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical standards.

In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, the manuscript is handled independently by an editor with no relevant conflict of interest, and the conflicted Editor-in-Chief does not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process.

Revision Process

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation may be returned to the authors for revision following peer review.

Revised manuscripts should generally be resubmitted within 1 month from the date of the editorial decision. Authors who require additional time should request an extension from the relevant Associate Editor at least 2 weeks before the 1-month revision deadline. Manuscripts that are not resubmitted within the specified revision period may be rejected.

Authors are expected to submit a detailed response addressing the reviewers’ and editors’ comments together with the revised manuscript.

Following resubmission, the Associate Editor evaluates the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses.

Manuscripts requiring substantial revisions may be sent for an additional round of peer review, generally to the same reviewers who evaluated the previous version. Additional or alternative independent reviewers may be invited when considered necessary.

The revision and re-review process may continue until sufficient information is available to reach an editorial decision.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

The journal conducts its peer review and editorial decision-making processes in accordance with the principles of editorial independence, impartiality, confidentiality, and transparency.

Editors and Editorial Board members must not participate in the editorial evaluation or decision-making process for manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest.

If the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, or another Editorial Board member is an author of a submitted manuscript or has a relevant conflict of interest, that individual is completely excluded from the editorial handling, peer review, and decision-making process for that manuscript.

In such circumstances, responsibility for the manuscript is transferred to an editor with appropriate expertise and no relevant conflict of interest, and the evaluation and decision-making processes are conducted independently of the individual concerned.

No individual may simultaneously exercise editorial decision-making authority and serve as a peer reviewer for the same manuscript.

Ethical Assessment

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with internationally accepted standards of publication ethics throughout the submission, peer review, and editorial decision-making processes.

Manuscripts must comply with applicable ethical approval requirements and the journal’s ethical policies.

Reviewers and editors should bring any potential ethical concerns identified during the evaluation process to the attention of the journal.

If ethical misconduct or a potential breach of publication ethics is suspected during the peer review or editorial process, the journal will act in accordance with relevant international publication ethics guidelines, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Statistical and Editorial Evaluation

Where applicable, manuscripts undergo evaluation by the journal’s Statistical Editor before the final acceptance decision is made. Following acceptance, manuscripts undergo the journal’s applicable language, technical, and editorial checks prior to publication. Accepted manuscripts are reviewed by the Language Editor, as applicable. A marked-up version of the manuscript is then sent to the corresponding author for review and any necessary final adjustments. These evaluations do not replace the scientific peer review process.