Turkish information for Reviewers
Dusunen Adam Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences is a peer-reviewed, open-access, quarterly journal that publishes experimental and clinical research manuscripts in the fields of psychiatry, mental health, behavioral sciences, neuroscience, and related fields . The journal classifies the received manuscripts as follows:
-Research article
-Brief report
-Case report
-Guest editorial
-Letter to the editor
The primary goal of Dusunen Adam Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences is publishing original scientific manuscripts with highest ethical and scientific standards. The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences takes into consideration the COPE guidelines and flow charts for peer review process (https://publicationethics.org/peerreview).
The Peer - Review System
The journal uses double-blind peer review process. Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or submitted to another journal are accepted for evaluation. Manuscripts are to be submitted online via journal's submission system and reviewers should use reviewer login on the journal's web site (http://www.dusunenadamdergisi.org). Response time for the manuscripts without review is averagely 3 days; with review, it is maximum 4 weeks. Acceptance to online publication takes 10 weeks. The editor-in-chief is responsible of the editorial and scientific content of the journal and the timing of the publication content.
Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. For the manuscripts that are considered for publication an unbiased, double-blinded peer-review process is initiated by associate editors. The manuscripts are sent to two or more independent peer reviewers who are expert in the field. The reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editor to make a decision, and the authors to improve their manuscript. The requested changes are made by the authors using the online manuscript submission system. Associate editor sends the original manuscript, the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments together with his recommendation to the editor-in-chief.
Reviewers are expected to comment on potential research or publication misconduct such as unethical research design, duplication, plagiarism, etc. In case that the reviewers have any potential competing interests, they have to inform the editor before agreeing to review an article. Reviewers who seek assistance from a trainee or colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals' contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers must request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review.
Guidelines for conducting a review
A reviewer should consider the following in accepting, declining, starting and reporting a review.
- When you receive an invitation for review, make your decision as soon as possible and respond without delay.
- The manuscript should be within the scope of your area of expertise. If it is not, you should decline.
- In case of potential conflict of interest, you should inform the editor.
- In case of potential ethical concerns such as plagiarism, fraud or other, inform the editor about it; visit the ICMJE's, WAME's and COPE's sites regarding the issue.
- Keep in mind that the materials you receive are confidential and you cannot share them and you cannot share any information about the review with anyone, unless you have permission and/or authorization from the editor.
- State your overall opinion, comments and any possible deficiencies constructively and thoughtfully, without using personal remarks and details.
- Make clear that your comments and judgments are either your own opinion or they are derived from the data.
- State a clear recommendation fitting to one of the three options: rejection, acceptance without revision, revision.
-Explain your reason of rejection and required minor or major revision.
Checklist
- Potential conflicts of interests, which would interfere with your objectivity.
- Potential research or publication misconduct.
- Suitability to the journal's standards.
- Title and abstract quality.
- Scientific structure: Precisely stated problem, method, results, conclusions.
- Novelty and significance of information.
- Quality of the language.
- Appropriateness of terminology used.
- Adequacy of the references.
- Sufficiency of the figures, tables.
-The priority for publishing this article.
