Principles of Review
Articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under review by another journal for publication and approved by each author are accepted for review.
Articles that are submitted and pass the preliminary check are scanned for plagiarism using Ithenticate (or others) software.
Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal conducts a double-blind review process. All studies will be evaluated by the editors in terms of their suitability for the journal. Articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the articles independently of the author's ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, and political philosophy. The Editor-in-Chief sends the articles to the assistant editors after reviewing them. Assistant editors ensure that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind review.
The Editor-in-Chief does not allow conflicts of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers and is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
Editors do not participate in decisions about articles written by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, or that concern products or services in which the editor is interested. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.
Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published, and they must report to the editor any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the author's part.
If a reviewer does not feel qualified to address the subject of the article or is unable to provide timely feedback, they must notify the editor and ask not to be involved in the review process.
Reviewers must be aware during the review process that articles submitted for review are the private property of the authors and are privileged communication. Reviewers who accept review are deemed to have accepted this rule. Reviewers and editorial board members may not discuss articles with other people. Care must be taken to ensure the identity of reviewers assigned to articles remains confidential.
Evaluation Process
Review Type (Double Blind): The editor ensures that the articles are subject to a fair double-blind review and if the article complies with the formal principles, the incoming article is submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees from Turkey and/or abroad. If the referees deem it necessary, they approve the publication of the article after the requested changes are made by the authors.
Review Time: Pre-Publication
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between referees and authors. Authors do not know who the referees are, and referees do not know who the authors are.
Review Time: The main target for research articles submitted to the review process for review in Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal is that the time until the final decision does not exceed 8 weeks. This period may be extended due to unforeseen reasons.
Plagiarism Control: Our journal scans articles to prevent plagiarism.
Number of Referees Reviewing Each Article: Two-three
Allowed Time: 20 days. This period can be extended by 3-10 days upon the request of the referees.
Decision: In order for the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor, at least two referees or one referee and one assistant editor must make an acceptance decision.
Suspicion of Ethical Violation: Referees should report the situation to the Editor when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The Editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary procedures by COPE recommendations.
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the research article on the day it is submitted and, if he/she thinks the article deserves further evaluation, sends it to the assistant editor for a more detailed review. For research articles, the assistant editor usually reads each article from beginning to end. We aim to reach a first decision for all articles within two or three weeks, but the first decision is usually made within a few days of submission. If we do not think that the Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal is the right journal for the submitted work, we immediately notify the authors so that they can send their work elsewhere without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the subject being outside the scope of the journal.
If the editor-in-chief and assistant editors do not find it necessary, the article will go directly to the referee process. However, in some cases when the editor and assistant editor require your research article, the next step is our Editorial Board meeting. The members will read your article and discuss its importance, originality, and scientific quality. We mainly focus on the research question to make editorial decisions for research articles. Even if the subject of the article is relevant to the journal's scope, current, and important, we may reject the article if there is no research question. Of course, if there are serious flaws, the study will be rejected. The article meeting will be attended by everyone asked to declare any relevant conflicting interests at the outset, and anyone with a significant conflicting interest either leaves the room or speaks last when the relevant article is discussed (depending on the nature and extent of their interests).
If your article is suitable for the Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal, the section editor will send it to two external reviewers. The reviewers will advise the editors, who will make the final decision. We ask the reviewers to approve their reports and declare any conflicts of interest in the article we send them. The associate editors will then make their decisions, and the final decision will be made by the editor-in-chief.
Some articles may be viewed by third parties, as deemed appropriate by the editors of Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal, in cases where serious research misconduct is suspected.
We aim to reach a final decision on publication for all articles within 4 and 8 weeks of submission. However, this period may be extended due to circumstances beyond our control.
Principles of the Referee Process for the Work of the Editorial Staff
Editorial articles and analysis articles written by the editors of the Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal do not undergo external referee evaluation. Original research articles are sent to at least three external referees under blind refereeing. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.
Authors' Responsibilities
The author must comply with research and publication training.
The author should not attempt to publish the same study in more than other journal.
The author must fully indicate the works he/she used in writing the article in the bibliography.
Editor's Responsibilities
The editor evaluates the articles in terms of scientific content regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief, or political opinion of the authors.
The editor conducts a fair double-blind referee evaluation of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information regarding the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs the referees that the articles are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and the editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other people. The anonymity of the reviewers must be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share a reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a specific point.
The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or retraction when necessary.
The editor-in-chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers. He/she has full authority only to appoint reviewers and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the manuscripts in the journal.
Reviewers' Responsibilities
Reviewers should not have any conflict of interest with the research, authors, and/or research funders.
Reviewers' evaluations should be objective.
The language and style used by reviewers should not be offensive to the author.
Reviewers should ensure that all information about submitted manuscripts remains confidential until the manuscript is published.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they discover copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they review.
A referee who feels inadequate to review an article or who thinks that they will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
During the review process, referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article? / Is the method defined in a complete and understandable way? / Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings? / Are sufficient references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality sufficient?
The “Preliminary Review Form”, “Article Evaluation Form” and “Book Review Evaluation Form” used in Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal can be viewed on the journal website.
Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening
The study is reviewed by the editor in terms of compliance with the journal publication principles, academic writing rules, and APA Citation System and is subjected to plagiarism screening using iThenticate or Turnitin programs. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 20%. If the similarity rate appears to be 1% but the citation and citation are not done properly, plagiarism may still occur. In this respect, the citation and citation rules should be known by the author and should be applied carefully:
Citation/Indirect Citation: If a thought, discussion, or observation in a source is cited and the cited opinion is put on the line with the referencing researcher's own words, a footnote mark (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the citation is to a specific page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the entire work, that is, if the citation is made to a degree that requires the reader to examine the entire work, the source should be stated in the footnote after the expressions "See this issue," "See this opinion," "See
Quotation/Citation: If the relevant part of the source is taken as is, without changing the period and comma, the quoted part is given “in double quotation marks” and the source is indicated by giving a footnote number at the end. Quotations in the directly quoted text are written using “single quotation marks”. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown as a separate paragraph. To distinguish long quotations from the main text, it is preferable to write it in a font size one size smaller than the normal text size and to indent the entire paragraph from the left at the line initiation level. In the directly quoted text, some words, sentences, and paragraphs can be removed, provided that the meaning is not changed. Three dots (…) are put in place of the removed parts. It would not be correct to write the part directly quoted from a source without putting it in “double quotation marks” and to be content with writing the source only at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be subject to charges of violation of publication ethics (Plagiarism) (see www.isnadsistemi.org).
Field Editor Review
The work that has passed the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Scanning stages is reviewed by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language style. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.
Review Process (Academic Evaluation)
The work that has passed the field editor's review is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external reviewers who have a doctoral dissertation, book, or article on the subject. The review process is conducted confidentially within the framework of the double-blind refereeing practice. The referee is requested to state his/her views and opinions about the work he/she has reviewed in the text or to justify them with a minimum of 50 words on the online review form. The author is given the right to object and defend his/her views if he/she does not agree with the reviewer's opinions. The field editor ensures mutual communication between the author and the referee by preserving confidentiality. If both reviewer reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal for publication. If one of the two reviewers has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third reviewer. Studies can be published with a positive decision by at least two reviewers or with an acceptance decision by one referee and one assistant editor.
Proofreading Stage
If the reviewers request corrections to be made to the text they have reviewed, the relevant reports are sent to the author, and the author is asked to correct the study. The author makes his/her corrections by turning on the “Track Changes” feature in the Word program or indicating the changes in the text in red. He/she submits the revised text to the field editor.
Field Editor Check
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections to the text.
Reviewer Check
The reviewers who request corrections check whether the author has made the requested corrections to the text.
Expansion of the Abstract Section
Authors of studies deemed “publishable” by both reviewers may be asked to expand the abstract section of their articles to a maximum of 350 words.
Turkish Language Check
Studies that have passed the referee process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and the Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.
