Information for Reviewers

1. Peer Review Policy & Ethics

The Van Medical Journal adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review process. To maintain the integrity of this process, reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

• Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged document. Do not discuss it with others or share it without the Editor's permission.
• No AI Usage: Uploading the manuscript (or any part of it) to Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, LLMs) for summarization, evaluation, or review assistance is strictly prohibited due to data privacy and copyright concerns.
• Conflict of Interest: If you have any competing interest (financial, professional, or personal) with the authors, institutions, or subject matter, you must decline the review invitation immediately and notify the editorial office.
• Timeliness: Reviews must be completed within 15 days of accepting the invitation. If you require an extension, notify the Editorial Office promptly. If you are unable to complete the review, please decline as soon as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be contacted.
• ORCID: Reviewers are encouraged to register for an ORCID identifier (https://orcid.org) and link their review activity to their ORCID profile via the Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition service.

2. Guide for Reviewing a Manuscript

Please focus on the scientific quality, originality, and clarity of the manuscript. Do not focus on minor copy-editing (typos or grammar), as the editorial team will handle this. Use the following checklist to guide your evaluation:

Title and Abstract

• Does the title accurately reflect the content and scope of the study?
• Is the abstract a self-contained summary including objective, methods, key results, and conclusions?
• For Original Articles: Does the abstract include a Limitations subheading?
• For Clinical Trials: Is the trial registration number included in the abstract?

Introduction

• Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the gap in current knowledge clearly identified?
• Are references relevant, current, and appropriately cited?

Materials and Methods

• Is the methodology described in sufficient detail to allow replication of the study?
• Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
• Is Ethics Committee approval clearly stated (committee name, approval date, and number)?
• Is informed consent confirmed?
• Are statistical methods appropriate? Is sample size justification (power analysis) provided?
• For clinical trials: Was the trial prospectively registered? Is the TRN stated?
• Are reporting guidelines followed (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD as applicable)?

• Are the findings presented clearly and logically?
• Do tables and figures add value, or do they simply repeat the text?
• Are the results consistent with the methods described?

Discussion and Conclusion

• Does the discussion interpret results rather than merely restating them?
• Are results compared with existing literature?
• Has the author explicitly discussed the limitations of the study?
• Is the conclusion supported by the data presented and clearly stated?

Additional Checklist Items

• Is a Data Availability Statement included?
• Is an Author Contributions (CRediT) statement included?
• Are funding sources and conflicts of interest declared?
• Is AI tool usage disclosed, if applicable?
• Are DOIs included in references where available?

3. Writing the Review Report

When submitting your review via the online system, structure your comments constructively:

• Summary: A brief paragraph summarizing your understanding of the study's aim, methods, and main findings.
• Major Comments: Critical flaws in methodology, missing data, ethical concerns, or issues that prevent publication in the current form. Number each concern.
• Minor Comments: Suggestions for improving text clarity, figure quality, or adding missing references. Number each comment.
• Recommendation:
  • Accept: No changes needed.
  • Minor Revision: Small changes required; no re-review typically needed.
  • Major Revision: Significant rewriting or re-analysis required; re-review expected.
  • Reject: Serious methodological flaws, lack of novelty, or ethical concerns.

4. Writing the Review Report

The Van Medical Journal acknowledges the essential contribution of peer reviewers. Reviewers who complete high-quality, timely reviews are recognized in the journal's annual "Thank You to Reviewers" publication. Reviewers are encouraged to log their review activity on Clarivate's Web of Science Reviewer Recognition platform (formerly Publons) to receive formal credit for their contribution to the peer-review process.