ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

To accept the evaluation of articles that are related to the field and have no conflict of interest.

To be unbiased, impartial, objective at all stages of the evaluation and to consider only the content of the study.

Completing the article evaluation process on time.

Use constructive language when making suggestions that will help improve the quality of the article.

To protect the confidentiality of the evaluated article and the information related to the article.

ARTICLE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR REVIEWERS

1. The articles sent to the Farabi Medical Journal are first evaluated by the journal secretary in terms of their compliance with the writing and journal rules. If deficiencies are detected in the preliminary evaluation, they are returned to the author(s) to be corrected. In the preliminary evaluation, the articles sent in accordance with the publication format of the journal are sent to the journal editor. For articles, first of all, a similarity scan is made and evaluated by the editor. If the article contains plagiarism or is likely to contain plagiarism, the article is directly rejected by the editor. If it deems appropriate for the publication principles of the journal, it is sent to the relevant field editor or the editor can appoint a referee. If deemed appropriate by the editor, it is sent to at least 2 reviewers working in different institutions who are experts in the subject area of the article.

2. All of the articles submitted to the journal are evaluated using the double-blind method, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are hidden during the evaluation process. The reviewers are given 15 days to evaluate and this period can be extended by the editor. In case of no return from the referee or referees, the editor may appoint new reviewer(s).

3. The editor examines the reviewer reports and if the reviewers' evaluations are positive, they have the authority to accept the reviewer's opinions or reject the article by showing an explainable reason(s) in order to preserve the quality of the journal.

4. In case of a positive opinion from the reviewers regarding the publication of the article with corrections, it is decided to send the article to the author(s) for necessary corrections in line with the reviewer's recommendations, and to publish it if the corrections made by the author(s) are found sufficient. If the corrections made by the author(s) are not found sufficient, the article may be rejected.

5. In case of a rejection or a minor/major correction opinion from the reviewers regarding the publication of the article, the evaluation of a third reviewer is provided and the editor and/or editorial board decides to publish or reject the article, taking into account the opinion of the third reviewer.

6. In case of negative (Rejection) opinion from the reviewers regarding the publication of the article, the rejection of the article is decided. The relevant editor has no authority to change this decision.

7. Author(s) may object to the rejection decision of the reviewers, provided that they show evidence. The objections of the author(s) are reviewed by the Editorial Board, and if deemed necessary, a re-evaluation process can be initiated.