Ege Tıp Dergisi / Ege Journal of Medicine implements a rigorous, transparent, and multi-stage peer review process to ensure the scientific validity, originality, and ethical integrity of every manuscript considered for publication. The process is conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

Manuscripts must be submitted electronically through DergiPark. The editorial office checks whether the submission is complete, including the main manuscript, title page containing author information, ethics committee approval where applicable, informed consent documentation when required, similarity report, author contribution form, copyright transfer form, and any other required documents. The editorial office also verifies compliance with the journal's formatting and submission guidelines.

Incomplete submissions are returned to the corresponding author for correction before entering the evaluation process.

2. Similarity Screening and Scientific Integrity

All manuscripts must be screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., iThenticate), and the similarity report must be uploaded during submission to the journal.

Manuscripts exceeding the established similarity threshold, raising suspicions of data fabrication, involving duplicate submission, or constituting previously published work that has not been appropriately disclosed may be rejected at this stage before proceeding to editorial assessment.

3. Preliminary Scientific Assessment by the Editor

The Editor-in-Chief or the relevant Section Editor, appointed according to the manuscript's subspecialty, evaluates the manuscript's scientific soundness, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, and methodological adequacy.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific merit, or contain serious structural or ethical deficiencies may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

This stage is generally expected to be completed within 1–2 weeks.

Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or members of the Editorial Board are handled by an editor who has no conflict of interest. Authors of such manuscripts must not have access to reviewer identities or the decision-making process. This principle also applies to any appeals or complaints arising from the handling of these manuscripts.

4. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary scientific assessment are assigned to a Handling Editor, who identifies at least three independent external reviewers with relevant clinical or methodological expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected with due consideration of potential conflicts of interest with the authors, including recent co-authorship, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships.

5. Type of Peer Review

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process. Throughout the review process, the identities of the authors and information identifying their affiliated institutions are concealed from reviewers, while reviewer identities remain confidential to the authors.

Authors are required to anonymize their manuscript files accordingly at the time of submission.

6. Statistical Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts involving quantitative data analysis are additionally evaluated by a Statistical Editor or a Handling Editor with expertise in biostatistics, either before external peer review or concurrently with the review process.

This assessment examines the appropriateness of the study design and justification of sample size, the validity of the statistical tests used, the accuracy of data presentation (including tables, figures, reported p-values, and confidence intervals), and, where applicable, the validity of bioinformatics and statistical workflows.

Manuscripts with major statistical deficiencies are returned to the authors for revision before external peer review or before the review process is completed. The Statistical Editor's comments are communicated to the authors together with the reviewers' reports.

7. Peer Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects of each manuscript:

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Scientific and methodological rigor, including study design, appropriateness of the methods used, and statistical analysis
• Validity and reproducibility of the findings
• Appropriateness and coherence of the Discussion and Conclusion sections
• Ethical compliance, including ethics committee approval, informed consent, and data protection
• Quality and currency of the references

Reviewers submit a structured report and recommend one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

8. Decision by the Handling Editor

The Handling Editor evaluates the reviewers' reports collectively and makes a recommendation regarding the manuscript.

When reviewer recommendations conflict, a fourth independent reviewer may be invited to assess the manuscript.

The decision, together with anonymized reviewer comments, is communicated to the corresponding author.

The journal aims to issue the initial decision within 4–6 weeks from the assignment of reviewers.

9. Author Revisions

Authors are given four weeks to submit a revised manuscript, together with a point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment.

Whenever possible, revised manuscripts are returned to the same reviewers for further evaluation.

10. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' reports and the recommendation of the Handling Editor. Borderline or contentious cases are discussed at an Editorial Board meeting.

A final editorial decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or revision may be made on the basis of the recommendations of at least two of the three independent reviewers assigned to the manuscript.

11. Appeals and Complaints Policy

Ege Tıp Dergisi / Ege Journal of Medicine is committed to addressing appeals against editorial decisions and complaints concerning the editorial process fairly, transparently, and in a timely manner. This policy is consistent with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

a. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

The corresponding author may appeal a rejection decision, including a desk rejection, or a decision issued following revision.

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the journal's editorial office at egetipdergisi@gmail.com. The manuscript number and title must be included in the subject line of the email.

Appeals submitted directly to individual editors or reviewers will be redirected to the editorial office. Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of notification of the decision.

An appeal must include a detailed letter providing point-by-point justification. Appeals will be considered when the author can demonstrate one or more of the following:

• A factual or methodological error in the reviewer's or editor's assessment
• A misunderstanding of the study design or data
• Evidence of reviewer bias or an undisclosed conflict of interest
• A procedural error in the handling of the manuscript

Disagreement with the decision or dissatisfaction with the outcome alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

New data that were not included in the original submission will not be considered as part of the appeal and may instead be submitted as a new manuscript.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief together with another editor who was not involved in the original assessment of the manuscript. Where necessary, an additional independent expert who has not previously evaluated the manuscript may be consulted.

The editorial office acknowledges receipt of an appeal within 7 days. The outcome, accompanied by a written explanation, is communicated to the authors within 30 days.

Possible outcomes are as follows:

• The original decision is upheld.
• The manuscript is reconsidered.

Reconsideration does not guarantee acceptance.

The appeal decision is final, and only one appeal may be submitted for each editorial decision.

b. Complaints Regarding Editors, Reviewers, or the Editorial Evaluation Process

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders may submit complaints concerning the conduct of editors or reviewers, delays, breaches of confidentiality, perceived conflicts of interest, or any other aspect of the editorial process.

Complaints must be submitted in writing to egetipdergisi@gmail.com, with a clear description of the grounds for the complaint and supporting documentation where available.

Receipt of a complaint is acknowledged within 7 days, and the complaint is handled confidentially.

The complaint is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or by an editor appointed by the Editor-in-Chief who has no involvement in the matter under consideration. The individuals concerned may be asked to provide their views during the review process.

A written response is provided to the complainant within 30 days. If the investigation requires additional time, the complainant is informed of the anticipated timeframe.

If an ethical violation or breach of journal policy is identified, appropriate action is taken in accordance with COPE guidelines. Such action may include transferring the manuscript to another editor, removing a reviewer or editor from the process, or referring the matter to the relevant institutional authority.

If a complaint or appeal directly concerns the Editor-in-Chief, for example, an alleged conflict of interest, misconduct, or a decision made by the Editor-in-Chief regarding the complainant's own manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief must not be involved at any stage of the process.

In such cases, the matter is handled by another member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest. This individual independently investigates the case, consults members of the Editorial Board or independent experts where necessary, and communicates the outcome to the complainant in writing.

c. Confidentiality and Record-Keeping

All appeals and complaints are handled confidentially. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the appeal process.

The editorial office maintains records of all appeals and complaints, including how they were handled and their outcomes.

12. Post-Acceptance Process

Accepted manuscripts undergo English-language editing and technical proofreading, preparation of page proofs, and DOI assignment. They are then published online as Online First articles before being formally included in a journal issue.

Policies Supporting the Process

• Conflicts of Interest: Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose conflicts of interest at every stage of the process.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts under evaluation are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or use unpublished data from manuscripts under review.
• Reviewer Recognition: The journal publishes an annual list of reviewers and encourages reviewers to record their contributions through ORCID and Publons (Web of Science Reviewer Recognition).
• Use of Artificial Intelligence: AI tools cannot be listed as authors. The use of AI tools in manuscript preparation or during the peer review process must be disclosed.
• Appeals and Complaints: Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.