Review Process

Peer-Review Process for Authors

Journal of Trends in Medical Investigation employs a double-blind peer review system, which ensures that the identities of both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Each manuscript undergoes a thorough evaluation process, typically involving at least two external reviewers and editors from the Journal.

  1. The review process starts when the manuscript is submitted to the online review process for publication. The entire review process is carried out completely online.
  2. After the submission of the manuscript to the journal, technical checks are carried out by the editorial office. During the technical check, manuscripts are controlled in terms of the format requirements, and to ensure all the information, files and forms are complete as specified. The technical check is completed within 15 days. In case of any missing information or deficiencies, the manuscript is sent back to the author to complete them.
  3. After the technical checks, manuscripts are forwarded to the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief evaluates the manuscripts according to its suitability in terms of the journal's focus, scope and publication quality.
  4. The peer review process begins for the manuscripts that are deemed suitable by the editor-in-chief. The peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript thoroughly and make one of four decisions: recommending publication, minor revision, major revision or rejection. As a result of the review, the author(s) are given 15 days to complete minor revisions and 21 days to complete major revisions.
  5. In line with the reviewers' recommendations, the academic editors forward the decision to publish the manuscript to the editor-in-chief. There may be more than one round of peer review for this decision. This process takes a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 30 days.
  6. The editors-in-chief evaluate the decision of the academic editors and make a final decision and share this decision with the authors.

Appeals and Complaints

The Journal follows Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals, and complaints about the peer review process. Appeals to editorial decisions are welcomed. However, authors must present strong evidence, additional information and data in the appeal letter. Authors can send an appeal letter to editorial office e-mail address. Appeal letters should include (if available)

  • the reasons for the appeal,
  • details of the technical errors,
  • reasons of disagreements and disputes,
  • evidence regarding conflict of interest,
  • additional or new resources, evidence, information, and data

The editors will respond to the request within one month. Editors may reject or accept the manuscript, request a revision, or suggest initiating an additional review process. All decisions on appeals are final. For more information about the policy on appeals and complaints, please contact the editorial office.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have been sent for peer review cannot be withdrawn. However, if further delays occur in the peer-review process, authors are entitled to withdraw their manuscripts. For manuscripts that have not yet begun the peer review process, the corresponding author may request withdrawal by sending an email to [email protected].

Peer-Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

Technical Check is carried out by the editorial Office including:

  • Similarity check via Turnitin.
  • format requirements,
  • whether all the necessary information is provided or not
  • completion of files, forms, statements

Preliminary review by the editor-in-chief including adherence to:

  • Journal's Focus And Scope
  • Publication Quality
  • Language Quality
  • Ethical Standards
  • Conflict of Interest

Editor-in-chief either rejects the manuscript or forward it to academic editors.

Evaluations by the academic editors including:

  • Objective errors
  • Language errors (grammar and spelling rules, and the related scientific literature)
  • Research quality
  • Compliance with ethical considerations and standards for the research.

Academic editors either rejects the manuscript or forward it to peer-reviewers they invite.

Review process by peer-reviewers include:

  • Declaration of competing interests (If there is competing interests, the editorial office will evaluate the  relationship and if deemed permissible, peer-review will be assigned. Editorial office will follow the COPE’s guideline on competing interests)
  • Review of the manuscript thoroughly.
  • Quality assessments: Research question, hypothesis, theoretical background and relevance to the scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation.
  • Providing feedbacks
  • Making one of four decisions: recommending publication, minor revision, major revision or rejection. 
  • Drafting a review report

Final Decision for Publication:

  • Once the author(s) complete revisions and/or complete the final version of the manuscript, academic editors forward the decision to publish the manuscript to the editor-in-chief. There may be more than one round of peer review for this decision.
  • The editors-in-chief evaluate the decision of the academic editors and make a final decision and share this decision with the authors. A manuscript can be either accepted for publication of rejected.
  • If the manuscript is accepted, production team will prepare the manuscript for publication.