Peer Review Process

SOUTH ARAL SEA MEDICAL JOURNAL applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, validity, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial office before being sent for external peer review.

At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

  • compliance with submission requirements;

  • scientific originality and significance;

  • methodological quality;

  • ethical compliance;

  • completeness of required declarations;

  • quality of language and presentation;

  • potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the scope of the journal, scientifically inadequate, ethically problematic, incomplete, or inconsistent with the journal’s requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Type of Peer Review

The journal primarily uses a double-blind peer-review process.

Under this model:

  • reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors;

  • authors do not receive information identifying the reviewers.

Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that minimizes direct identifying information in the version submitted for peer review.

The journal may use another appropriate review model in exceptional circumstances when justified by the nature of the manuscript or editorial requirements.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • expertise in the subject area;

  • research and publication experience;

  • methodological competence;

  • independence from the authors;

  • absence of significant conflicts of interest;

  • ability to provide an objective and timely evaluation.

Whenever possible, reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors and should not have recent close professional relationships with them.

4. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Invited reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline the invitation when a personal, professional, institutional, academic, financial, or other relationship could reasonably affect the objectivity of the review.

Examples include:

  • recent collaboration with the authors;

  • direct competition with the authors;

  • employment at the same institution;

  • supervisory or close academic relationships;

  • financial interests related to the research;

  • personal relationships that may influence judgment.

The editorial office may replace a reviewer if a relevant conflict of interest is identified.

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;

  • disclose unpublished findings;

  • use unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage;

  • contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript without editorial permission.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality during and after completion of the review process.

6. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to scientific and ethical criteria, including:

  • originality and importance of the research;

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;

  • clarity of research objectives;

  • appropriateness of study design;

  • validity of methods;

  • adequacy of sample size where relevant;

  • appropriateness of statistical analysis;

  • reliability of results;

  • consistency between results and conclusions;

  • interpretation of findings;

  • adequacy and relevance of references;

  • quality of tables and figures;

  • compliance with ethical requirements;

  • transparency of reporting;

  • overall scientific contribution.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, evidence-based comments that help both editors and authors evaluate and improve the manuscript.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept without revision;

  • Accept after minor revision;

  • Major revision required;

  • Resubmit after substantial revision;

  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

8. Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports together with the manuscript’s scientific quality, methodological validity, ethical compliance, originality, and relevance to the journal.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision;

  • Reject.

The editor is not required to follow the recommendation of any individual reviewer when there are valid scientific or ethical reasons for reaching a different decision.

Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may:

  • assess the manuscript independently;

  • request clarification from the reviewers;

  • invite an additional independent reviewer.

9. Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors must submit:

  1. a revised manuscript;

  2. a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments;

  3. a clear explanation of all changes made;

  4. a reasoned response where a suggested change has not been made.

Authors should address all substantive reviewer comments carefully and professionally.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the handling editor depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

10. Additional Review

The editor may request additional expert review when:

  • reviewers provide conflicting recommendations;

  • significant methodological concerns arise;

  • specialized statistical or technical expertise is required;

  • major revisions substantially change the manuscript;

  • ethical or scientific questions require further evaluation.

The journal may also seek statistical, methodological, ethical, or other specialist review when appropriate.

11. Review of Statistical Methods

For manuscripts involving complex statistical analysis, the journal may request evaluation by a statistical or methodological reviewer.

Authors may be asked to provide:

  • additional methodological details;

  • statistical code or analytical information;

  • clarification of sample size calculations;

  • explanations of missing data handling;

  • sensitivity analyses;

  • additional supporting data.

12. Research Ethics During Peer Review

Reviewers and editors are expected to identify potential ethical concerns, including:

  • absence of ethics committee approval where required;

  • inadequate informed consent;

  • inappropriate treatment of human participants;

  • animal welfare concerns;

  • questionable data integrity;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • plagiarism;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • image manipulation;

  • authorship irregularities.

When significant concerns arise, the editorial process may be suspended while clarification or documentation is requested.

13. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, or individuals closely associated with the journal are subject to the same peer-review standards as other manuscripts.

Such submissions are handled independently by an editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors.

The submitting editor or Editorial Board member must not participate in:

  • reviewer selection;

  • editorial evaluation;

  • access to confidential reviewer information;

  • the final publication decision.

14. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective and professional evaluations;

  • focus criticism on the scientific content rather than the authors;

  • avoid offensive, discriminatory, or inappropriate language;

  • support major criticisms with clear scientific reasoning;

  • identify relevant published work that may have been overlooked;

  • disclose conflicts of interest;

  • complete reviews within the agreed time whenever possible.

Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

15. Reviewer Identity and Anonymity

Under the journal’s double-blind review model, reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

The journal protects reviewer confidentiality unless disclosure is required by law, formal investigation, or another exceptional circumstance.

16. Reviewer Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential data, figures, tables, or substantial manuscript content into external artificial intelligence systems when confidentiality, privacy, or data protection cannot be guaranteed.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their review reports.

17. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantial scientific, methodological, or procedural error affected the decision.

An appeal must:

  • clearly identify the manuscript;

  • explain the basis of the appeal;

  • provide scientific justification;

  • address the reasons given for the editorial decision.

Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer opinions, without substantive scientific justification, may not be reconsidered.

Where appropriate, an appeal may be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

18. Complaints Regarding Peer Review

Concerns regarding reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, bias, or other aspects of the peer-review process may be submitted to the editorial office.

The journal will evaluate such complaints objectively and confidentially.

19. Editorial Responsibility

The peer-review process supports editorial decision-making but does not transfer editorial responsibility to reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for determining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in SOUTH ARAL SEA MEDICAL JOURNAL.

All decisions are made with the objective of maintaining the scientific integrity, ethical standards, transparency, and quality of the journal.