This guide is designed to assist in the peer review of manuscripts submitted to the journal The Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery (Turk J Vasc Surg). It aims to ensure that the review is accurate, comprehensive, and completed promptly.
For detailed information on the journal’s peer review process, including the review model, number of independent reviewers, handling of editor-authored submissions, and conflicts of interest, please see the Peer Review Policy.
Our Philosophy on Peer Review
The Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery expects reviewers to evaluate manuscripts fairly, thoroughly, transparently, and promptly. As a result, peer reviewers are asked to submit their comments within 15 business days. All submissions to the journal are subject to double-blind peer review. We believe that the best way to obtain honest opinions about manuscripts is through double anonymous reviewers. Reviewers and authors are required not to communicate with each other. You should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting to review a manuscript and throughout the peer review process.
Peer Review is Important
Peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations are crucial guides for making decisions about a manuscript. Peer review ensures that manuscripts receive impartial criticism and expert feedback, allowing authors to improve their work and enabling the publication of high-quality scientific research and reviews. It also helps readers trust the scientific integrity of the article and make informed decisions when reviewer comments are available.
Peer Review
After receiving a peer review request, it is important for reviewers to respond in a timely manner, especially if they are unable to complete the review, to prevent unnecessary delays in the process. Reviewers must keep all information regarding the content of the manuscript confidential. Peer review comments should be objective and constructive without being hostile or derogatory.
Reviewers should not enter unpublished draft files, images, or information into publicly accessible databases or tools that do not guarantee confidentiality and that may store or use this information for their purposes (e.g., generative AI tools like ChatGPT).
Reviewers should not use AI tools, including LLM-based tools like ChatGPT, to create manuscript review reports.
Reviewers are responsible for ensuring that all references included in their reports are accurate and verifiable.
More information about ethical peer review issues and conflicts of interest can be found in the COPE guidelines.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery is the final authority responsible for all editorial decisions regarding submitted manuscripts, including acceptance, revision, or rejection.
To maintain a fair and unbiased peer review process, especially when a manuscript is submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, an Editor, an Assistant Editor, or a member of the Editorial Board, the manuscript is assigned to an independent Handling Editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. The submitting editor has no access to the peer-review process and does not participate in the editorial decision. The final publication decision is made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or, where appropriate, by another designated senior editor.
If an article's peer review is an exception to the journal’s usual policy, the type of the review it received will be displayed on the article to ensure the transparency and accountability of the review process.
All submissions to the Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery undergo a double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process to ensure impartial and objective assessment.
Peer review plays a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality, clinical relevance, and integrity of published research in vascular and endovascular surgery.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, confidentially, and within the requested review period.
Reviews should provide constructive and evidence-based comments that help editors make informed decisions and assist authors in improving the scientific quality of their work.
Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on:
· scientific validity,
· methodological quality,
· originality,
· ethical standards,
· clarity of presentation,
· clinical relevance to vascular and endovascular surgery.
Reviewers should clearly identify the major strengths and limitations of the manuscript and provide specific recommendations where improvements are needed.
If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, fabricated data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of publication misconduct, these concerns should be reported confidentially to the editors.
Confidentiality
Peer review is a confidential process. Manuscripts and related materials must not be shared, discussed with third parties, or used for personal or professional advantage prior to publication.
If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague regarding a manuscript, prior permission from the editorial office must be obtained.
Submitted files and peer review materials should not be uploaded to publicly accessible artificial intelligence platforms or third-party systems that may compromise confidentiality.
Review reports must be submitted through the journal’s online manuscript management system.
Before Accepting a Review Invitation
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should consider the following:
· whether the manuscript matches their area of expertise,
· whether they can provide an objective and unbiased evaluation,
· whether any conflicts of interest exist,
· whether they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
Reviewers are generally expected to submit their evaluations within 15 days after accepting the invitation. If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office.
Reviewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the journal’s aims, scope, and ethical policies before conducting the review.
The journal follows the ethical principles and recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Preparing the Review Report
Review reports should be clear, constructive, and professional.
Comments should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript and should avoid hostile, vague, or non-constructive language. Comments should remain respectful and focused on the scientific content of the manuscript.
Reviewers are encouraged to:
· identify areas requiring clarification or revision,
· comment on the appropriateness of the study design and methodology,
· evaluate whether conclusions are supported by the presented data,
· suggest improvements that may strengthen the manuscript,
· indicate important relevant literature when appropriate.
Minor language corrections may be suggested when they affect scientific clarity; however, reviewers are not expected to provide full language editing.
Recommendation
After completing the evaluation, reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript:
· Accept
· Minor Revision
· Major Revision
· Reject
Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully during the editorial decision-making process. Final decisions regarding publication are made by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team.
Final Checks Before Submission
Before submitting the review report, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following questions:
· Have you provided constructive criticism together with clear and professional feedback?
· Are your concerns specific and supported with examples where appropriate?
· Have you clearly identified the major issues requiring revision?
· Is your feedback focused on the scientific content and clinical relevance of the manuscript?
· Would the authors understand what revisions or clarifications are required?
· Would the editors be able to make an informed decision based on your comments?
· Have confidential comments intended only for the editors been placed in the correct section of the review system?
· Have you reviewed your report for clarity, spelling, and grammar before submission?